TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I point out that if you write in passive voice, users have to figure out whether they need to do something or whether the machine does it for them. Even if it's pretty obvious ("the bla option is used to ..."), it's still extra cognitive load on users.
From: techwr-l-bounces+rebecca -dot- officer=alliedtelesis -dot- co -dot- nz -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+rebecca -dot- officer=alliedtelesis -dot- co -dot- nz -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Dave C
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014 4:46 a.m.
To: Tech Writing
Subject: Passive voice (was: Eschew, Evade, and/or Eradicate Legalese)
What arguments do we make to management and/or document originators that passive voice is... well, bad? I've always found a tepid audience when trying to describe why.
> Of course, there'd still be plenty of work for us converting passive voice to active voice, structuring documents rationally, and all those other things we do that add value.
> [Mike Starr]
Read about how Georgia System Operation Corporation improved teamwork, communication, and efficiency using Doc-To-Help | http://bit.ly/1lRPd2l