Verner,
I write in Controlled English for translation. I would write: Wait while
the program updates the results.
Thus, you avoid the Please and the gerund (updating), the first of
which is unnecessary and the second of which may not be translatable in
many languages. Simple, direct, active
On the other hand, why is it that computer programs must be seen to be
terse/rude?
There is no reason why a computer generated request cannot be
perceived as, at least, courteous.
Please wait is not a difficult thing to understand and is better for
the user to read than a terse wait.
It
I don't know about the rules of technical documentation, but please wait
sounds much better than just a command to wait.
More importantly, I love that you didn't use passive voice. You used
updating the result list instead of the typical, the result list is being
updated. Bravo!
Mike Wickham
But in order to avoid the passive voice, the UI resorts to the first person
plural, which is also discouraged in most technical writing style guides. At
best, the pronoun is unclear because it does not have a clear antecedent; at
worst, it is punning words in the mouth of the company, which
Make that ...putting words in the mouth... rather than punning.
Insufficient caffiene.
-FR
From: docu...@hotmail.com
To: i...@mikewickham.com; verner.ander...@radiometer.dk;
framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Use of please in technical documentation and messages on screen
Date: Fri,
I prefer active voice as well. An option that avoids please is to give the
user an indication of how long a wait is expected, especially if it is a
lengthy operation:
We are updating the result list, this will take XX minutes...
-- Les Smalley
--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Mike Wickham
For status messages such as the one you cite below, I think using please is
perfectly okay.
I also agree with omitting words that add nothing to the meaning of the
sentence; however, the use of please can convey a specific and useful tone.
It's not inappropriate for a status or feedback
I dislike the passive voice, but I dislike software anthropomorphism more. Who
is we? Software elves? The little ghosts in the machine? Sounds more like Pac
Man.
Nadine
--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Mike Wickham i...@mikewickham.com wrote:
From: Mike Wickham i...@mikewickham.com
Subject: Re: Use of
Actually, the way I would write the message avoids passive voice and omits
needless words. I would write, Updating result list. Please wait...
Mike Wickham
- Original Message -
But in order to avoid the passive voice, the UI resorts to the first person
plural, which is also
Microsoft Word would chide you for using a sentence fragment. =D
Nadine
--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Mike Wickham i...@mikewickham.com wrote:
From: Mike Wickham i...@mikewickham.com
Subject: Re: Use of please in technical documentation and messages on screen
To: Fred Ridder docu...@hotmail.com,
Mike Wickham wrote:
Actually, the way I would write the message avoids passive voice and
omits
needless words. I would write, Updating result list. Please wait...
This is how I'd do it too ... :)
Z
___
You are currently subscribed to Framers as
...at worst, it is punning words in the mouth of the company,...
I just love language...Kelly.
-Original Message-
From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Fred Ridder
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:09 AM
To:
Syed.Hosain wrote:
Mike Wickham wrote:
Actually, the way I would write the message avoids passive voice and
omits
needless words. I would write, Updating result list. Please
wait...
This is how I'd do it too ... :)
Likewise. And it's how Microsoft often does such status messages, so
Why not use the name of the software in the message instead of We. So,
for example, if you are using a software called Ender Wiggens, state:
Wait while Ender Wiggens updates the database.
This avoids unclear pronouns, passive voice, and has a clear antecedent.
-Gillian
-Original
14 matches
Mail list logo
