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 think a lot of unclear engineering writing comes from the use of
passive voice, awkward constructions, etc. to avoid humanizing machines.
You could call this the "Frankenstein syndrome," whereby the
creator-engineer avoids personalizing his-her creations as much as
possible, out of fear that those creations could turn into something
that can't be controlled. Of course, that happens anyway...
When I read your post I was working on the following:
The Z99 System monitors the D directory for orders ... When it sees a
files in this directory, it imports them into a temporary file...
I always use an anthropomorphic style to begin with, because it comes
naturally and is often clearer. If I sense an engineer bristling at some
of this phrasing, I know the shadow of Frankenstein is looming and maybe
I'll tweak a few things.
>From: Matthew J Long[SMTP:mjl100z -at- MAIL -dot- ODU -dot- EDU]
>I learaned and have always heard that using anthropomorphic phrases in
>technical writing is a taboo and, in general, I avoid it, but I was
>wondering what it is that makes it so bad? Any books that cover this?