Re: What to look for in a technical editor

Subject: Re: What to look for in a technical editor
From: "Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:55:24 -0400



----- Original Message -----
From: "Janice Gelb" <janice -dot- gelb -at- sun -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Sent: May 16, 2003 04:36 PM
Subject: Re: What to look for in a technical editor


:
: > From: "Andrew Plato" <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com>
: > :
: > : Simply put, an editor cannot make intelligent editorial decisions from a
: > : position of ignorance. As such, product and subject matter knowledge is
of
: > : primary importance.
: >
: > This is why some contend that the editor's job does not require less
technical
: > understanding. If I am going to spot a writer's error in describing how
: > complex routing rules work in a telephone system, I'd better know how they
: > work, myself, or I'm deluding myself that I am adding value to the
product.
: >
: > Editors in technical milieus, in large part, do the *technical reviews*
that
: > SME's are supposed to do.
: >
:
: First of all, this statement assumes a lot.

Yup. My brain must've been on backward!

I have been
: working as a technical editor for a long time and in the
: environments in which I've worked I've never been responsible
: for technical accuracy, nor expected to do a technical review
: of a document. I have often found technical inaccuracies
: anyway, but those were considered to be an added bonus to
: my primary function. My primary function is to make sure that
: the document serves the reader well, is organized in a way
: that best presents the information, does not contain errors
: of factual inconsistency, is not lacking in sufficient
: information to explain a concept or task, uses language
: correctly, and follows the style guidelines determined by
: our company.
:
: A technical review and an edit are not the same thing.

I agree. Perhaps I was overgeneralizing based on my own limited experience. In
my last job there were multiple errors that leapt out at me that no one had
said anything about. I eventually became the one who checked for accuracy and
I became intimately involved with the product -- as if I were a writer.
Technical reviewers would skim the text and leave egregious errors untouched.
But perhaps my experience is not the norm.


:
: Subject matter experts and the writer are responsible for
: technical accuracy every place I've worked. With the volume
: of work the editors typically have to do, and the number of
: different projects and documents the editors are expected to
: edit at those companies, they could not possibly become familiar
: enough with all aspects of the products to be responsible for
: catching technical errors.
:

Again, I think I overgeneralized. (Ouch, that wet noodle hurts!)

: That said, I agree that the editor should be familiar
: enough with the *general* subject matter area that he or
: she does not waste the time of the writer with elementary
: questions in that area.
:
: As for the example above, I might not spot a technical
: inaccuracy in how complex routing rules work in a telephone
: system but I probably would spot either gaps in the
: explanation or inconsistencies with other explanations
: that might lead me to a query. But again, it's never
: been my job to spot technical inaccuracies. That has
: been the job of the writer and the SME, plus whoever
: else does the technical review.

It became my job because management told me to fix what needed to be fixed.
Anything I did was reviewed, of course.

:
: Bonnie said in a follow-up message that ignorance of the
: product could cause the editor to raise grammatical issues
: hat change meaning or introduce errors when giving feedback
: to writers. That sounds to me like bad editing in general
: and has nothing to do with whether the editor is an expert
: on the particular product or technology.
:

Maybe I was just so confused at agreeing with Andrew that I could make no
sense. But there are just as many "bad" editors as there are "bad" writers
around.

: Finally, as anyone who has been reading this list for any
: length of time knows, "technical documentation" and "technical
: writer" do not have universal, uniform definitions. The same
: goes for "technical editor." Expectations and situations are
: varied, so I don't think anyone can make a flat, blanket
: statement about what "the editor's job" is or is not.

True. I am sorry for confusing the issue rather than shedding light.

___________________________________
Bonnie Granat
Granat Editorial Services
http://www.editors-writers.info






^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Robohelp X3, from eHelp, lets you quickly and easily create
professional Help systems for all your Windows and Web-based
applications, including Net.

Order RoboHelp X3 in May and receive a $100 mail-in rebate, PLUS
free RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module.

Order RoboHelp today: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



Previous by Author: Re: What to look for in a technical editor
Next by Author: Re: What to look for in a technical editor
Previous by Thread: Re: What to look for in a technical editor
Next by Thread: Re: What to look for in a technical editor


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads