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.
Subject:Re: accuracy from reviewers? From:Rebecca Phillips <rebecca -at- QRONUS -dot- CO -dot- IL> Date:Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:48:46 +-200
Getting accurate reviews is a classic problem. SMEs just don't have the
orientation to reading every line of the book. One way to get slightly more
accurate reviews is to give out small chunks of material, so that each person
reviews a small part at a time.
Another way that works to some degree is a sign-off sheet. In my last job, the
engineer had to sign off on the final review. The sheet had some kind of disclaimer
saying that the SME had reviewed the material and found it technically accurate. I can't
say it made everyone care, but it made a lot of the engineers say, "Hey, you mean
I am _responsible_ for the content?" (It also covers your behind, if that sort of thing matters to you.)
The truth is, though, that accuracy of review has to do with orientation. Some SMEs will
read every line and correct every comma, and some just flip through looking for glaring
errors. I am not sure which is a greater curse.
Rebecca M. Phillips
Qronus Interactive Ltd., Automated System Testing http://www.qronus-int.com
rebecca -at- qronus -dot- co -dot- il