Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown) is a master at this. He will go out of his way to coin and define new vocabulary in order to sound less intimidating. My favorite example is his invention of "squishification" as a synonym for eccentricity when talking about ellipses. It's a much better word because it's friendlier, it doesn't have semantic baggage related to weird mental states associated with it, and no one can ever forget what it means.
You get some really funny sounding names and captions, but the point is people are processing the parts of the diagram and looking for what's happening in the diagram. They're engaging fully with the process that's being represented, rather than just accepting terms and descriptions that are being given to them. You don't need to go through this lengthy process for every diagram you share, but it's a great way to introduce diagrams about key processes.
To bring it back to the article, many talented teachers discover techniques like this, as I imagine Grant Sanderson did. But every teacher can be taught this technique.
I recall one "creative" biochemistry professor that was always using clever invented words and analogies. So I had to learn his bullshit and then the real word as well which made it twice as hard.
I wish I could find a community with which to work on innovation like this. Instead, people largely work in isolation, without the benefits of collaboration. So for instance, I thought "squishification" didn't have quite the right emphasis - process rather than property - and wondered if something like "squishedness" might have been better. Perhaps a new ImproveThisExplanation subreddit, sort of a cross between ELI5, "What If?", and AskAScientist...???
Here's another use case to add to "squishification". Some weeks back, I was exploring how temperature is taught, preK-12. I noticed that mention of 'Sun heats Earth' was wide-spread, but that 'Earth is cooled by the deep-space sky' was almost never mentioned. Half of the energy balance was ignored. So explanatory leverage is left on the table - "Why are nights cold? Especially with clear sky? Especially in the desert? Why are mountains snow-capped? Why is winter colder?" etc. It doesn't seem inaccessible - "Between bright hot Sun, too hot, and dark cold deep-space sky, too cold, Earth spins, mixing too hot, and too cold, into not too bad." Like a person huddled next to a campfire or heater, turning around to warm their back. Spacecraft "barbeque roll" thermal management. Earth's surface as thermal mass for peak smoothing.
Maturing the idea to that point, and then finding and fleshing out opportunities for leverage, benefits from a diversity of expertise. Physics, teaching (various ages), engineering, planetary geology, etc.
So I wonder if it would be useful to think in terms of not just discussion, but also of leveraging existing communities? Orchestration, federation, cross pollination. So bits about radiative cooling rates could go to PhysicsForums.com; about 'why the sky is cold' to /r/AskScienceDiscussion; about 'nice videos of spacecraft doing bbq rolls' to /r/spacex; about teaching aspects to... sigh, it's a mess of mailing lists and blogs and... well, maybe prototypes to teacherspayteachers?; and so on. All pointing back to someplace able to coordinate the input.
It's much easier this year, in my opinion, as my class consists solely of the Hispanic students, and is co-taught with the ELL teacher. This makes it much easier to go through things slower, and make sure they understand the vocabulary that I'm using, which has facilitated their learning.