TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Patricia Blount noted: <<The best editorial review consists of a round
table meeting of the minds. All team members are present: SME, Editor,
Tech Writer and a representative or two from the target audience, i.e.,
end users.>>
Nice work if you can get it. <g> This is indeed a key part of the
review process I co-developed at a former employer: after the author
completed their research and wrote up an outline (often with my help),
all in-house stakeholders met to discuss/critique/polish the outline.
It was very effective.
<<But Editors are NOT responsible for the writing. They - in my opinion
- SHOULD ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING STANDARDS.>>
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. The advantage of having an editor
is that they can serve as the reader's advocate. Even professional
writers have their own unexamined assumptions, and benefit from a
review by someone who does not share those assumptions. They already
understand what they're trying to say, and often forget that readers
don't. Fixing that gap is the job of a substantive editor. You're
probably thinking of a copyeditor, and while I have no qualms about the
value of copyediting, that's only a small part of what a good editor
can do for you.
<<I've found that when editors are granted full responsibility for a
document, the relationship between technical writer and editor
deteriorates into 'one-up-manship' where preferences for second person
over third, or gerunds over infinitives, or even Arial over Times Roman
prevail over what's best for the end user.>>
You've clearly had limited and bad experience with a narrow range of
editors--from context, people who are not specifically trained as
editors, but who instead fell into the job from writing positions. I
make a very good living helping authors examine their assumptions,
pointing out the very many things they've forgotten to say, and helping
them say things better. My style is never about one-upmanship: it's
about working together to make the author look as good as possible,
with an emphasis on collaboration rather than dictation. It's the
message that's important, not who "wins" over word choice.
<<Because most editors are writers, it is natural to want things
written to preference.>>
Few professional editors are writers, though some (me, for instance)
also write professionally. Good editors do not "write to
preference"--they _re_write to make the text effective, and they
understand the difference between their preference and what is correct
and effective. The really good ones (me, at least some days) also
retain the author's voice to the extent that this is possible;
sometimes that voice is inaudible, and sometimes there's a house style
to be achieved.
<<However, editors did not write your document. They do not know the
context within which you chose specific words or phrases.>>
It's the fact that we _did not_ write the document that offers us
necessary critical distance that all authors lack. I say this as
someone who recently passed my 300th published article: I'm a very good
writer, and a better editor, but I still benefit greatly from having my
writing edited by a pro. A good editor makes a large effort to
understand the context of your writing--well enough, in fact, to help
you write effectively in that context.
<<They should never be permitted to make changes without the author's
and SME's approval. Granting editors full control often introduces
ambiguity to the finished document.)>>
No, editors should be removing ambiguity from the document; if they're
not, they're either incompetent or not doing their job. A properly
implemented editing process is one in which the editor _proposes_
changes and justifies any that are not obvious so the author can
understand and make the final decision about whether the change is
necessary. When the author disagrees, they discuss the issue with the
editor until they understand the problem: if the editor misunderstood,
many readers will also misunderstand, particularly when the editor is
sufficiently familiar with the field to be an honorary SME. I've
stopped counting the number of honorary doctorates I've received from
journal editors and authors for my contributions to their work. <g>
<<The Editor should enforce compliance to your company or departmental
style and standards guide...>>
Style guides are very useful, but consistency of style is one of the
least important things we do. Much more important are issues related to
logic, organization, and clarity--if these are not fixed by an editor,
all the consistency in the world will not make the document useful to
anyone other than the author.
<<The SME is the technical expert. This person has ultimate approval of
the message itself.>>
We agree 100% if "the message itself" means the content. But SMEs
rarely have good enough writing skills, and almost inevitably lack
critical distance--which is why writers and editors must be responsible
for how that message is delivered. Successful communication requires
both form and content, and it's the teamwork between SMEs and the
author and editor that provides both.
<<During the review, typos, grammar issues, and even word choice are
likely to be challenged by any member of the team. This is fine and to
be encouraged.>>
This is generally an inefficient way to conduct reviews. As noted in my
previous message, editors should fix all these problems so nobody else
has to waste mental effort fixing them. Think of it this way: you can
have one person spend an hour fixing the minor stuff, or you can ask
five people to each spend an hour doing so. Which wastes the least
time? The team review should focus on matters of substance--and any
issues the editor identifies as unclear and needing clarification, such
as word choice. However, word choice should be clearly defined in a
constantly updated style guide so that nobody has to waste time arguing
over the best words. Define a solution that works, and teach everyone
to use it.
<<Change the obvious errors, but you, as the technical writer, should
retain control over the language.>>
"Control over the language" is decided by consensus. The SMEs
understand the jargon better than anyone, the writers understand how to
use the jargon correctly and to replace it with non-jargon when
appropriate, and the editors ensure that this is done effectively. It's
a team process: nobody can succeed all by themselves, though of the
three groups, a really good professional writer is most likely to do
so.
Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 now has RoboHelp Converter and HTML Source: Author
content and configure Help in MS Word or any HTML editor. No
proprietary editor! *August release. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
