Re: Against "we"

[Jan Boomsliter <boom -at- CADENCE -dot- COM>]

Sue, I think we are in agreement:
        "should" requires that conditions be spelled out
        "must" is an imperative
        we ask the user to choose to do what we recommend
Yes?

jb
====================================
On Aug 16, 10:57am, Susan W. Gallagher wrote:
> Subject: Re: Against "we"
> 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

>-- End of excerpt from Susan W. Gallagher



--
Jan Boomsliter
408/428-5428