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.
That's interesting -- we have the opposite situation. Our engineers
anthropomorphize *everything*. For example, instead of saying "the
client sends an X request to the server," our engineers (native and
non-native English speakers alike) talk like this: "He talks to the
server and asks him to do an X" where "he" is the client application,
"him" is the server application, and "x" is some action. I have to
be very exact when I speak to them because any time I use a pronoun,
they assume I mean the application, not the user. It's pretty comical
at times. These folks definitely have personal relationships, with
varying degrees of intimacy and marital bliss, with their code.
However, back to Matt's original point -- searching is an action that
the application does -- it searches. That's not anthropomorphizing.
>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...