"Proper" writing, and the use of "you"

I just posted this at LinkedIn. It's worth sharing here, particularly for the perspective on what "proper" really means.

My comment started in response to this post:
> A properly written technical manual should be impersonal.
> Use active voice to tell the reader what to do

About the Use of "You"

I agree with the second part. It's usually the preferred way, and perfect for steps. But when you (!) write something conceptual rather than procedural--especially if it is conditional--then you (!) have a hard time avoiding it. (Here I'm writing conceptual material to explain the writing process, not a directive that tells you (!) specifically what to do. You (!) can't use active voice here, and using "the writer" in no way adds clarity.)

But perhaps the best response was posted by Lasse Haggman:

If you sit next to a person to help them, do you really say: "The user clicks the Options button"? Or do you say, "Click the Options button"?

That succinct reply says it all, because the goal of technical writing, ultimately, is to help someone.

However, in rebuttal, John Yannis provided the phrasing of my comments below, eliminating the use of "you" altogether--it may just be clearer, because it's shorter. (Do you agree?) And it is clearly not as "familar". (Is that a good thing?)

I agree with the second part. It's usually the preferred way, and perfect for steps. But in writing something conceptual, rather than procedural--especially if it is conditional--it is difficult to avoid it. [Here I'm writing conceptual material about the writing process, not a directive that says specifically what to do....]

About what is "Proper"

Sorry, but I object to the term "properly". Many a grammar rule has been upheld as "proper" without real justification. I'm willing to buy the premise that a technical manual should be impersonal, but I'm afraid I'll need a good reason before I do.

After all, cravats and spats were once "proper" attire for business. Ties are no longer even required, and usually avoided. So it's clear that "proper" can be construed as a euphemism for "current fashion", rather than a synonym for "there is a good reason". So saying it is "proper" is not a valid justification, by itself.

There is one argument that always wins, however, regardless of trends. That is an argument in favor of clear and concise communications. If you can show me how being "impersonal" furthers that goal, then I will be persuaded.

However, I am afraid that the prospects are bleak. You see, I read way too much Victorian English in my formative years, and wrote in a similar style for much of my life. (A habit that English teachers seemed to love, alas.)

To me, it made sense. After all, why say something only once if you can come up with 50 different ways to say it? Surely one of them will connect with the reader! And why express a thought in 20 words if you can shower it with 100? Surely the more important the concept, the more words it deserves!

Needless to say, my early writing was atrocious, because what was proper in the Victorian era does not translate well to an environment in which people want to find out what they need to know to get on with what they were doing, and get back to doing it as quickly as possible.

In other words, what was "proper" in one setting was not "proper" in another. So the important question is not "What is proper?" but rather, "What goal are we trying to achieve and how can we best achieve it?".