We have previously described an electronic voiding diary, "Compu-Void" (Copyright, 1990) developed to automate recording of bladder symptoms (Rabin et al., 1993). Our objectives in this, the second phase of this study, were to examine a group of subject and control patients' preference and compliance with regard to the "Compu-Void" (CV) compared to the standard written voiding diary (WD), to compare the two methods with respect to the amount and type of information obtained and to determine whether or not the order of use of each recording method influenced results in the subject group.Thirty-six women between the ages of 20 and 84 with bladder symptomatology were compared to a group 36 age-matched women.In 100% of subjects and 95% of control patients, CV entries exceeded the number made with the WD in voiding events and in subjects, in incontinent episodes recorded (P < 0.0005 and P < 0.005, respectively). Over 98% of subjects and over 80% of control patients preferred CV over the WD (p < 0.0005). The order of use of each recording method in subjects made no significant difference with regard to the volume of information obtained (p < 0.407), number of urinary leakage events recorded (p < 0.494), and fluid intake patterns (p < 0.410). Patient impressions of, and compliance with each method were not affected by order of use. The only difference regarding order of use was that most subjects who used the CV first also found the WD to be tedious (61% vs 14%).Our results suggest increased volume of data and of patient compliance in reporting bladder symptoms and events using CV, and that order of use is not an important factor in determining patient impressions of the two methods. The majority of subject and control patients preferred CV over traditional methods. An updated version of the software and hardware is also included.