>>>>> "When the user clicks the login button, the main screen appears"
>>>
>>>Passive voice, but: "When the login button is clicked, the main screen appears"
>>
>>I can't tell you how many editors I fought with about that one. Apparently, lots of teachers teach that passive voice is never okay. I would argue that it's perfect for cases where the actor is unknown or irrelevant. Usually, I won. <g>
>>
>
>Write in the active voice, not the passive voice -- Strunk and White. I do not view it as a bible but it does have a lot of good advice for anyone who wants to write well.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/The-Elements-Style-William-Strunk/dp/1481913417/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1370014592&sr=8-2&keywords=the+elements+of+style
>
>$6.26, amazing.

Yeah, it's on my shelf, too (along with Turabian and several others). But the point is that while active is usually the right choice, it's not always the right choice. Especially for scientific and technical writing, passive is often better. When the actor is unknown or irrelevant, writing in the active voice can be clumsy or misleading.

I don't have time right now to dig up some examples from my books or magazine articles, but there were plenty of times when an editors attempt to go from passive to active made no sense at all.

Tamar