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.
Bonni Graham <bgraham -at- electriciti -dot- com> wrote:
>>...Not everyone checks the doc to make sure their suggestions got in, but
those who do really care, we need to respect that.
Another thing we have to do is teach them how to edit... Two cases in point:
1) The Dreaded "Unclear" edit
2) The Even More Dreaded "More Detail" message<<
I also see comments similar to those Bonni described. Our manuals are
reviewed by engineers (the very ones we hounded for the original information)
and I believe they aren't always sure of their role in the review cycle.
Sometimes I see the comment, "develop this concept more," as if the reviewer
were a college professor grading my paper. I also see plenty of "homegrown"
proofreaders' marks. (Some of them are actually quite comical.)
So, I wrote a legitimate ISO 9000 procedure for all document reviewers,
telling them exactly what my department expected in the way of edits. I
explained that all reviewers were chosen on the basis of their technical
expertise as it relates to our product, and that while spelling and grammer
edits are appreciated, their function is to ensure the technical viability of
the document. I also included an appendix of proofreaders' marks.
I distribute a copy of the procedure with every review draft. The comments
and edits since implementing the procedure have improved noticeably.
I think people (even engineers) need to be told up front what's expected of