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: What do you call them? From:Fabien Vais <phantoms -at- ACCENT -dot- NET> Date:Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:57:33 -0400
I agree with Kevin's dilemna. I have often had the same kind of problem,
both working on a contract basis and full-time. It used to anger me that
people were taking a DRAFT copy that I handed in, and using it as a FINAL
copy. I too started to print DRAFT COPY on the cover, and even in the
footers, etc. One day, I I got so mad that I even overprinted DRAFT in very
light grey diagonally across every single page of a manual. Till the day I
was told to remove everything. They said "they knew it was a draft, that I
didn't have to worry about anything, etc." So I stopped. What the hell, if
they want it that badly, let them have it!
But the thought has remained in my mind. Today, I usually tell (just
verbally or by e-mail) my clients VERY CLEARLY that what I'm handing in is a
DRAFT copy, that I haven't had a chance to do a final edit of the text, that
running the spellchecker is never enough, that there are probably still
inconsistencies, and that I don't consider this a FINAL COPY, etc. If after
being told this, they give me back the text for me to "complete" it, great!
If not, too bad for them. I've decided that I won't lose sleep over it anymore.
Curious to know what others have to say about this situation.
phantoms -at- accent -dot- net
At 08:29 AM 8/5/97 MST, Kevin wrote:
> Another question. I am in a weird situation where I work, as a
> subcontractor at Motorola's IRIDIUM project. The basic philosophy of
> documentation since I started here is "Just get the documents out
> there for people to look at."
> I hate this philosophy because it does not lend itself to getting the
> document properly reviewed by the SME, other people who use it,
> managers, what have you. So, documents get "released" to people that
> are not very good, for whatever the reason. There was no process of
> how to get signatures, approvals, reviews, what have you.
> Therefore, when I started, I started to put "DRAFT COPY" on the
> document's cover page and footers. I made it clear that I was not
> happy the documents were not being reviewed and signed off (which is
> weird, because everyone here sees the need for documentation, I guess
> just not good documentation), and until that happened, the documents
> would remain a DRAFT COPY.
> Well, yesterday, the question came up in a staff meeting from the
> group manager why the documents are called DRAFT. Which got me
> thinking. Perhaps the words DRAFT COPY were not appropriate in this
> situation because many of the documents are completed, just not
> inspected. I have been tossing around terms in my mind like:
> 1. unapproved
> 2. prerelease
> You get the idea. I was wondering what my peers call documents that
> have been "released" but not officially approved.
> Please rely off-line and if there is sufficient desire, I will post a
> summary. Thanks in advance