active vs. passive voice

[Leonard C. Porrello]

Kevin McLauchlan said:

>I think that inherent in "Click <New Entry>. The New Entry window
>appears..." carries the unvoiced assumption:
>"Click <New Entry> and, as a result, the New Entry window appears..."

Thanks for the excellent point, so much more cogent then the earlier
appeal to authority we saw. I know it probably appears I'm just being
stubborn, but that's not the case. If using only the present tense is
truly better for the reader, that's what I want to do. Here's the
problem I'm still having:

"Click <New Entry> and, as a result, the New Entry window appears..." is
semantically no different from "Click <New Entry> and the New Entry
window appears as a result." And, "Click <New Entry> and the New Entry
window appears as a result" is semantically more similar to "Click <New
Entry> and the New Entry window will appear" than it is to "Click <New
Entry>. The New Entry window appears." As Kevin illustrates, in the
purely present tense version, one is making the reader do the work of
making an assumption. My version, using present tense (imperative) then
future tense (what will happen), does that work for the reader. I would
suggest, therefore, that slavish adherence to using only the present
tense is simple only in appearance. In reality, using only the present
tense places more of a cognitive burden on the reader than using both
the present and future tense in the manner I suggested. Regarding the
phenomenology of the reader/text/computer gestalt (as opposed to only
pure grammar), the use of only the present tense is actually more
complex and demanding.

Having said that, I do respect the argument made by an earlier poster:
if a user does read the imperative, act, and--then--go back to docs to
check feedback, I agree that using only the present tense is best. I
would assert, however, that is not how most readers read tech docs.

Finally, while I try to be mindful of and do respect convention, I
reject the earlier appeal to authority: i.e., "conventional TW wisdom,
every tech writing text book, and the MSMoS." While facilely impressive,
this approach is not cogent. In reminds me of scholastic philosophers
appealing to Aristotle to convince Galileo that what he saw with his own
eyes was false. Regarding "conventional wisdom," I'm sure you are all
familiar with the story of why we always cut off the ends of the pot
roast. Regarding "every TW writing text book," I am reminded of all the
text books currently is use in schools across the U.S. that claim
Columbus et al thought the earth was flat. Regarding the MSMoS, it might
be a good idea to copy MS if only because they are ubiquitous. Ubiquity,
however, doesn't equal right.

Leonard C. Porrello
SoleraTec LLC
www.soleratec.com