Website Diagnostic & Language Audit for Chobble CIC
This case study demonstrates the Conscious Copy approach to a Succession I : Remediation — a language audit. It details how to unblock a technically excellent service from information overload, translating complex developer documentation into clear revenue pathways for non-technical community leaders.
Chobble is a web development and open-source software practice run by Stefan, a veteran developer with over 20 years of experience. Operating as a registered Community Interest Company (CIC), the business is built on radical transparency, open-source code, and 50% discounts for non-profits.
The foundation of the service is strong. The ethical spine is undeniable. But the language was carrying sediment.
The specific blockage was information overload — the tendency of a deep expert to describe their work at the level of their own understanding rather than the level of their audience's need. Chobble's site was showcasing its tech-stack to an audience that simply wanted to know if they could afford to sell tickets to a local event. Non-technical charity organisers, local businesses, and self-hosting developers were all routed through the same channel, making readers work hard to find the sections right for them.
A comprehensive audit delivering jargon translation, audience routing, and claim clarification — an executable blueprint Stef could implement independently.
Phase 1 : The Diagnostic
Engineering the Remediation
The first step was a deep-scan of the existing website to locate the specific points where understanding stalled. The diagnosis revealed that the friction wasn’t in Chobble’s ethics or pricing, but in audience blending and technical depth.
| The Sediment (Developer Jargon) | The Clear Channel (Client Comprehension) |
|---|---|
| “Delivered via GitHub" | "You get the full application files in an online repository" |
| "Meeting WCAG2 guidelines" | "Built for screen-reader accessibility" |
| "Atomic capacity checks" | "Designed to prevent overbooking, even under load” |
The Rationale :
Non-technical clients don’t buy GitHub or Atomic capacity checks; they buy Ownership and Reliability. Technical depth has its place — in the documentation layer, where developers expect to find it. At the decision layer, it creates resistance before trust has been established.
Phase 2 : Structural Routing
Untangling the Channels
The Services page was functioning as a parts catalogue instead of a route map. Visitors met 20+ undifferentiated offers with no signal about where to start. The effect was “jack-of-all-trades” doubt rather than “trusted generalist” confidence.
The Mechanics :
I restructured the routing logic to prioritise audience identity over technical category.
- If you’re a non-profit or value-aligned…
- If you’re running events and paying fees…
- If you’re stuck on expensive hosting…
The Rationale :
When serving multiple audiences, a single stream gets muddy fast. A “Where to Start” menu acts as a distribution point, allowing each reader to flow effortlessly toward their relevant offer.
Chobble’s highest-value proposition for event organisers (Chobble Tickets) was invisible on the homepage. I surfaced it within the first scroll, applying the same audience-based routing consistently across the audit scope, so that each visitor is signposted to the solution they need.
Phase 3 : Erosion Control
De-risking Absolute Claims
A core function of the Language Audit is liability protection. Highly competent engineers often describe what their system is built to do as an absolute guarantee. Under scrutiny, this creates immense risk and erodes trust.
The audit identified these vulnerabilities and softened absolute technical promises into defensible, mechanism-based statements.
I identified a cluster of absolute claims across the site’s SEO, accessibility, and security language. These were not false — they reflected genuine technical quality and care. But stated as absolutes, they carry liability that compounds as a client base grows.
Each claim was risk-rated and reframed around mechanism rather than outcome:
| Original Claim | Risk | Defensible Revision |
|---|---|---|
| ”Rank well on Google” | High | ”Solid technical foundation for search — rankings depend on content and links" |
| "Meeting WCAG2 guidelines” | High | ”Designed with accessibility best practices in mind" |
| "Personal information stays protected even in a breach” | High | ”Stored encrypted, significantly reducing the risk of it being readable in a breach” |
Clear Conscience
“I especially liked the points about toning down the absolute claims I’d made about technical capabilities which could bite me in the future if someone held me to them.” - Stefan, Chobble CIC
The Rationale :
Dialling back these claims did not weaken the copy. It made it structurally defensible. Precision is not caution — it is the more credible position, and the one that holds up when a technically literate client reads it twice.
The Delivery
An Executable Blueprint
The final product was not a rewritten website, but an executable blueprint. I delivered a comprehensive annotated Audit, Jargon translations, and rewrites of their highest-impact sections, and an implementation guide Stef could act on independently.
The underlying work at Chobble was already strong. The audit did not change what their practice does. It cleared the path between what Chobble does and the people who need to understand it quickly enough to get on board.
Is Your Technical Brilliance Clogging up the Current?
This case study demonstrates the Conscious Copy methodology applied to technical de-jargoning and risk mitigation.
If your technical work is bloated with developer documentation or failing to connect with your non-technical audience, let's clear the channel.
…Conscious Copy