Re: Against "we"

["Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM>]

Jan...
Yes, we do agree.
-Sue


> 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