What is the correct usage for 'seeing' or 'viewing'?

A coworker has developed a website page that identifies the results of your search with the statement “You are seeing product XYZ”. I maintain that correctly the statement should be “You are viewing product XYZ”, but for life of me I can’t explain why.

Can anyone help 1) correct me if I’m wrong; 2) explain the rule that makes me correct; and/or 3) explain whether this question requires a Hi Opal?

Thank you.

Not so much “correct,” but rather…What’s making you reject You are seeing is that see is a stative verb, which means that when used in the progressive aspect (be + ing, that is, are seeing), it’s “marked.” Normally we say, “I see a strange man,” etc., rather than, “I’m seeing a strange man.” (With the verb see, using the progressive aspect is 'marked" for special contexts, such as a fortune teller, etc.) View isn’t a stative verb; it’s a dynamic verb, so it seems “better” to you.

However, just because it’s “marked” doesn’t mean it’s “wrong.” Digital communications–and the technology by which we use them–has required all kinds of changes in how we use language, so if that gets used enough, it will take on that usage as normal.

Thank you so much guizot.

Not sure if that’s not exactly the same thing guizot said, but to me, “to see” means to have something in one’s field of vision, while “to view” has an active component to it - exactly like the difference between “to hear” and “to listen”.

I think it fundamentally is the same thing, in that it involves a sense of action, and the distinction between hear and listen similarly relates, because normally hear is a stative verb. (Ex: “Do you hear that?”–Not, “Are you hearing that?”, except for marked situations.)

Verbs of sense also often have a similar distinction between stative/dynamic accompanied with a change of agency, even though it’s the same word:

The roses smell nice right now.
vs.
I’m smelling the roses right now.
The judges are tasting the wines as we speak.
vs.
I think the California wine tastes best with this meal.

From your first link:

That is not true of “see”. We generally begin and cease to see things at fairly specific points in time.

The entry on dynamic verbs, specifically mentions “to see” as an example of one.

Things (visible things) can be in our field of view without our actually seeing them, so that is certainly not what “to see” means. It is true that “view” and, a fortiori, “look” carry stronger connotations of activity, but, in fact, all seeing depends on active looking or viewing (although that fact, a relatively recent scientific discovery, is not, perhaps, yet baked into our language).
It seems to me that teh only problem with “You are seeing product XYZ” is that although it is displayed on the screen, it does not follow that you are actually seeing it. After all, you might be looking away, or have your eyes closed. Of course, that is true of “You are viewing product XYZ” also, but perhaps that sounds better because it has become established as an idiom for something being available to view on a computer screen.

I thought of something that may be similar to what you are thinking. I’m a native American English speaker.

It seems to me that “View” carries a stronger emphasis on intent on the part of the person doing the viewing. “See” can imply something that was seen by accident.

E.g.:

“I viewed the traffic accident.” - I became aware of a traffic accident, and knowingly and intentionally observed it with knowledge of its nature (that it was a traffic accident and not a moose crapping in the street).

“I saw the traffic accident.” - I witnessed the traffic accident, but I wasn’t necessarily interested in it or specifically intending to view it, it just happened and I was looking in the right direction at the time.

The determination isn’t so literal. As the entry says, a stative verb is one “which asserts that one of its arguments has a particular property.” It’s the assertion of the property that makes it classified as “stative,” not what a person is actually doing with his or her eyes. In this case, it’s not about when an action literally starts or stops. The parameters of this grammar isn’t representational.

Generally, the classification of “stative” for things involving perception are considered valid in those cases when modal can is ascribed.

A: “Do you know what happened?”
B: “Well, I (can) see that someone took some of our things.”

As opposed to, “*Well, I am seeing (am being able to see) that someone took some of our things.”

See almost always takes progressive aspect to convey some specific, marked meaning or affect:

“Are you seeing anyone now?” (dating)
“I’m seeing the validity of your argument to an extent, but I fundamentally don’t agree.” (momentary rhetorical concession)
“She’s always seeing the worst in people!” (complaint)
etc.

I think the usage on the website disconcerts Heckity precisely because he feels that the shopping experience of looking at a potential purchase should be recognized as a tentative examination–not a perception.

seeing
viewing

So?

It should be viewing.

Read those references a little more carefully. You’ve linked to gerund forms (substantives), and you can’t make any conclusion from them about the verb forms described in the OP, which allow for the distinction of aspect–something that can’t arise with nouns.

If you just lazily type S-E-E-I-N-G, etc. into an online dictionary you’re not going to come anywhere close to addressing the OP’s concern. Sorry. You have to think for this one.

Sorry no. Seeing is wrong.

Considering

  1. the definition of viewing is “the act of seeing”; and
  2. you did not include the verb form of seeing from the definition of see: See - definition of see by The Free Dictionary

I think your dismissal is a little premature.

Very simply, seeing is more passive and viewing is more active.

If I walk down the street, I’m seeing a lot of things – the sky, trees, birds, houses, the ground, etc. – without really focusing on them or purposefully looking at them.

Viewing implies more of a deliberate action to focus on on the item in question.

I don’t think “seeing” is wrong, but “viewing” is the better choice for the reasons guizot stated. However, we do go “see” and exhibition/play/movie, and one would think “view” might be the better choice for those activities given the dynamic nature of the seeing, no?

“You are looking at product XYZ” is even better than seeing or viewing.

Did I say it was “correct?” This isn’t a question of “wrong” or “right,” but if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp, whatever. We can’t disentangle the semantics of the isolated verb from this particular usage (progressive aspect).

If you arrive at the medical office a little early, and the receptionist says, “Please take a seat; the doctor is seeing another patient”–is that “wrong”? If not, then why can’t it be okay in the website context? As pulykamell points out, there are various idioms already where the dynamic use of see is perfectly “correct.”

I think we probably all can agree on that. The OP’s puzzlement, though, is really because he’s not sure why see feels wrong to him.

Because seeing (and it’s base form see), in that context, has picked up an idiomatic meaning, one that I have trouble describing, but involves one-on-one contact with a client, to the exclusivity of other clients. Seeing does not have the idiomatic meaning of intentionally viewing something.

In fact, that would be the difference I would note. Except in idiomatic usages, seeing is passive and viewing is active. (Looking depends on which definition is being used.) You can just “happen” to see something. You cannot happen to view something.

Looking is different in that it can mean the same thing as viewing, but can also mean searching (looking for) or simply having something in your visual range, even if you do not currently see it. But, once you do see it, you still may not be viewing it.

It depends if you live on Aurora or Solaria.