The importance of diversity and education when designing forms, especially government forms. We have to make sure they work for everyone. For example, I was getting ready to renew my passport, and came upon this:

YES / NO
The U.S. passport book and/or card that I am renewing has not been mutilated, damaged, or reported lost or stolen.

There were other similarly worded questions, but let’s focus on this one for now.

The YES/NO answers here are problematic for many non-native English speakers. I’ve lived in Puerto Rico long enough that I had to reread it multiple times switching my internal language parsers between English and Spanish grammar.

In Spanish, it might read:

Sí o no, mi pasaporte que quiero renovar, no ha sido dañado o perdido.

“No, no ha sido dañado o perdido.” (No, it has not been damaged or lost).

To answer “sí” (yes) to a leading negative question doesn’t sit well when I think in Spanish, even if I’m reading in English. Even being fully bilingual, there are still subtleties in how we process meaning, how our grammatical and cultural lexicon is organized, and after 30+ years the manner in which I process language has changed.

(And don’t get me started on “on” vs. “in.” In Spanish, it’s just “en” for both, and context defines the position. The more I think about which to use, the more lost I get.) Do you get on a bus or do you get in a bus? Are you on top of a bus? or a train? I’m so confused!!!

Anway, back to the US GOV Passport renewal form. A simple change could fix the confusion here:

TRUE / FALSE
The U.S. passport book and/or card that I am renewing has not been mutilated, damaged, or reported lost or stolen.

True! It has not been damaged.

Or better yet:

TRUE / FALSE
The U.S. passport book and/or card that I am renewing is readable, in good condition, and in my possession.

If all YES or TRUE conditions were worded in this positive manner, instead of the awkward negative, there would be less ambiguity and confusion for those of us who speak more than one language.