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've worked under many a style guide that shuned "should" -- the
> reasoning was if it's something the user *should* do, just tell
> them to do it. Consequently, I've disciplined myself to limit
> *should* instructions (and I don't think I've ever used "need to"
> or "ought" -- at least past the first draft). I must admit to using
> "must" on occasion, though. (So basically, I agree with you about
> the "need to", I'm just not quite as liberal on the "should".)
> Another red-flag word I though of yesterday just after I hit the
> send button is "will". I sometimes get sloppy with tense in the
> first draft, so I mark every occurrence of "will" and do my best
> to change future to present tense wherever I can.
Seeing this post reminded me of the Quality Control Manual I rewrote for
one company. Many of the statements in this manual began with "The
employee shall..." do whatever. I really came to dislike this phrase--it
always seemed to me that an active statement would accomplish the task as
well or better--but my boss insisted on this phrasing.
