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.
Subject:Re: Against "we" From:"Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:57:23 -0700
Jan B writes...
> May I add another point? - I see "should" as a conditional; "must" is an
> imperative. "Should" must include (must include, not should include) the
> conditions under which one "should" ....
In response to LaVonna's response to Mark L...
> > > Rather than "we recommend"
> > > I try to use an imperative, or "you should."
> >
> > Good point. I was thinking about scholarly papers rather
> > than instructional material when I said to use "we recommend"
> > vs. "it is recommended."
> >
Sorry, guys (that's the gender-neutral 'guys' BTW).
On the rare occasions when I find it necessary to
recommend a course of action to the user, I prefer
the direct "we recommend" over "you should" or the
passive "it is recommended that".
The user understands the sentence, it's direct and
straight forward, and it's construction and tone fit
well with the second-person active-voice writing
style I use in the rest of the book.
I've always thought that the conditional overtone of
'should' is something I 'should' avoid in technical
writing -- and if it's only a recommended course of
action, 'must' is too strong.
Just my $.02
Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- starbasecorp -dot- com
