A directory of resources inthe field of technical communication.

Articles>Editing>Collaboration

34 found. Page 1 of 2.

About this Site | Advanced Search | Localization | Site Maps
 

1 2  NEXT PAGE »

 

1.
#37808

Achieving Consistency among Editors

I manage a group of editors at a software company. This topic describes how we strive to achieve consistency in editing software documentation among a group of editors both within a department and across divisions in a large company. We have a staff of 14 editors that serve five large writing departments. Our editors are excellent grammarians before they come to SAS, but they also get considerable training and mentoring in SAS specific guidelines when they join our staff. I acknowledge that it’s impossible to achieve 100% consistency across all editors, but consistency is worth striving for for several reasons.

Moell, Patricia G. STC Technical Editing SIG (2010). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>Technical Editing

2.
#30347

Barriers and Approaches to Reviewing Documentation

This article discusses some important issues in implementing a software documentation review process. If you are part of a small development organization and have few reviewer resources available, you may have to improvise techniques for providing the services and procedures suggested here.

Boston Broadside (1997). Articles>Documentation>Editing>Collaboration

3.
#34700

Best Practices for Online Review

Marking up paper is still the most common way to review documents, but online review is critical if you work as part of a distributed team. There are advantages to online review even if you sit only a cubicle away from your reviewer. Here are few tips for making your online reviews go smoothly.

Smith, Terry. Carolina Communiqué (2009). Articles>Editing>Online>Collaboration

4.
#24233

Beyond Copy-Editing: The Editor-Writer Relationship

Editing is often narrowly defined as making corrections after a document is written. This approach typically relegates the editor to a low-status role within the organisation.

Durham, Marsha. Technical Editors Eyrie (1991). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

5.
#23557

Creating an Editing Policy   (PDF)

As an editor, you realize how important it is to edit information consistently. What you might not realize how important it is to let the writer know how you are going to edit, what you are going to edit, and what you expect from the writer. An editing policy lets you communicate these things to the writer. When you and the writer know what to expect from each other, you are able to work together as a team to produce a quality document.

Reed, Wendy L. STC Proceedings (1994). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

6.
#31020

Critiquing Critiques: A Genre Analysis of Feedback Across Novice to Expert Design Studios   (peer-reviewed)   (members only)

In the discipline of design, the most common presentation genre is the critique, and the most central aspect of this genre is the feedback. Using a qualitative framework, this article identifies a typology of feedback, compares the frequencies of feedback types between different levels of design studios ranging from novice to expert, and explores what the feedback reflects about the social and educational context of these design studios. Results suggest that the feedback socialized students into egalitarian relationships and autonomous decision-making identities that were perhaps more reflective of academic developmental stages or idealized workplace contexts than of actual professional settings--therefore potentially complicating the preprofessional goals of the critique.

Dannels, Deanna P. and Kelly Norris Martin. Journal of Business and Technical Communication (2008). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

7.
#24500

Factors in Reader Responses to Negative Letters: Experimental Evidence for Changing What We Teach   (peer-reviewed)   (members only)

This article summarizes the scholarly discussion about negative messages and reports the results of two pretests and two experiments using negative letters. The results show that buffers did not significantly affect college students' responses to simulated letters refusing credit and denying admission to graduate school, and strong resale was counterproductive. Students responded least favorably to rejection when they were surprised by it and when their other options were limited. On the basis of these experiments and the published literature, the author recommends that negative letters normally begin with the reason for the refusal, using a buffer only if one of several exceptions apply. If the reason makes the company look good, it should be spelled out in as much detail as possible. If an alternative or compromise exists, the writer should suggest it. Although a positive ending is not necessary, if one is used, a bland positive is better than a strong one, especially in letters to clients or customers.

Locker, Kitty O. Journal of Business and Technical Communication (1999). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

9.
#15139

Getting Reviewers to Review   (PDF)

Presents ten humorous suggestions for technical writers on how to persuade reviewers of documentation to do their jobs.

Hart, Geoffrey J.S. Intercom (2000). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

10.
#34860

How Did This Happen?

Even a newspaper like The Times, with layers of editing to ensure accuracy, can go off the rails when communication is poor, individuals do not bear down hard enough, and they make assumptions about what others have done.

Hoyt, Clark. New York Times, The (2009). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>Case Studies

11.
#32228

Inspiring Reviewers to Review Your Documents

To obtain good reviews, you must make the process as painless as possible for reviewers.

Hart, Geoffrey J.S. TECHWR-L (2008). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>SMEs

12.
#34524

Interpreting Editorese

Even if an editor loves, loves, loves your work, she is still likely to have to shepherd it through some kind of review process — either internally, in the case of a trade house, or to external academic readers. Many manuscripts die that way, despite the "interest" of the press. Those that are not outright killed can be wounded and sent back to you for some critical care.

Toor, Rachel. Chronicle of Higher Education (2009). Articles>Publishing>Editing>Collaboration

13.
#18848

The Knowledge Editor(SM): Innovative Editorial Solutions to Meet Your Quality Objectives   (PDF)

This paper represents over 30 years cumulative work experience, as both corporate staff members and as consultants, and shares recommendations for providing highly valuable editorial contributions. The authors also introduce a new concept for innovative editorial methods that meet the technological and productivity challenges facing today’s information design organizations.

Holland, Mary T. and Kristen Sutton. STC Proceedings (2002). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

14.
#22690

Learning the Fine Art of Reviewing

If you asked me what the most painful part of being a technical writer is, my answer would be: 'Getting reviews on time. Getting good feedback and inputs on your work.' For me technical writing has been very pleasurable because I hardly got any review comments. My morale has therefore been very high. Project managers, developers and others are so busy trying to come up with good software (read trying to fix all the goof-ups and bugs!) that they usually tend to give documentation lesser importance. User manuals, who reads them anyway? We do not have time for it!

Kamath, Gurudutt R. IT People (2003). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>Technical Writing

15.
#35010

Let Us Now Praise Editors

Editors are craftsmen, ghosts, psychiatrists, bullies, sparring partners, experts, enablers, ignoramuses, translators, writers, goalies, friends, foremen, wimps, ditch diggers, mind readers, coaches, bomb throwers, muses and spittoons -- sometimes all while working on the same piece.

Kamiya, Gary. Salon (2007). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

16.
#31848

Long-Distance Editing   (PDF)   (members only)

Check out seven tips that will help you and your team remain busy and useful when you have extra time or gaps between projects.

Crognale, Heather. Intercom (2008). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>Online

17.
#37744

Microsoft Word: To Track or Not to Track Changes

Track Changes in Microsoft Word is an indispensible tool for editing, but it is not the best tool for the job in every editorial situation. You may find that both tiny details and big-picture edits cause you-and your reviewers-to want less tracking, not more.

Ruby, Jennie. I Came, I Saw, I Learned (2010). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>Microsoft Word

18.
#24731

The Nature of the Interchange Between Editors and Authors

Editors, if allowed to interact with authors on a level above the comma, could often help authors negotiate new meaning as authors struggle to translate their ideas into writing.

Document Design (2001). Articles>Collaboration>Editing

19.
#27461

Now That You've Got a Double Agent, What Do You Do With 'Em?   (PDF)

Having demonstrated the importance of acquiring a double agent for writing projects, we now want to explain the best ways to successfully indoctrinate a double agent. This paper will help you prepare for, orient, train, and become a mentor for a double agent to help make him or her an effective member of your writing team.

Fisher, Judith R., Karen L. Mobley and Michelle M. Wright. STC Proceedings (1994). Articles>Writing>Technical Editing>Collaboration

20.
#33864

Off Site Reviews: Six Ways to Exchange Edits

Coordinating a document review can be a tedious process. However, the task is even more difficult when reviewers work in another location and can't quickly exchange comments via paper. Fortunately, technology is presenting writers with new options for handling off-site reviews.

HelpScribe (2009). Articles>Collaboration>Editing>Online

21.
#29436

The Physics of Reviewers

Subject-matter experts, managers, and other reviewers tenaciously resist our nagging to review documents properly, often delaying reviews until it's too late to do a good job. It's not that they inherently oppose quality control; rather, the problem's in the amount of work required to review something thoroughly, and 'work' is a physics concept. Conveniently, reviewers--like falling objects--follow the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe, and understanding those laws helps you predict reviewer behavior and take appropriate countermeasures.

Hart, Geoffrey J.S. Geoff-Hart.com (2001). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

22.
#23149

Planning and Leading a Successful Review Meeting   (PDF)

Experienced and novice technical communicators can plan and lead successful review meetings by following this 4-step process: l—Plan ahead. 2—Use an agenda as a road map. 3—Wrap up. 4—Follow up. Although a faceto- face meeting is often the easiest way to get formal feedback on an information product, there are situations in which you should not hold a meeting. If a meeting is appropriate, however, there are specific things you can do to prevent or handle typical problems. Leading a successful meeting involves making a series of conscious choices to make better use of everyone’s time.

Hansen, Lauren Y. STC Proceedings (1996). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

23.
#30564

Reviewing a Peer's Work   (PDF)

If we've been asked by a peer to review his or her work before it is sent out to be scrutinized by the world, our job is to neither edit nor rewrite the information. Our job is to give helpful, specific feedback about where the information communicates well and where it needs work. The more we understand about how to review a peer's work effectively, and how doing this is different from editing, the better feedback we can provide.

Gillihan, Dana L. STC Proceedings (1993). Articles>Collaboration>Editing>Writing

24.
#22113

The Role of the Editor in the Technical Writing Team

Editing today covers far more than printed materials. In this discussion, I am assuming a technical editor may be required to deal with: printed materials (for example, books, pamphlets, quick reference cards); electronic (for example, online documentation, online help, web pages); video scripts; computer-based training materials. I am also assuming that the audience for the material being edited is not comprised of other technical people; or if it is, the editor is not the person responsible for ensuring the technical accuracy of the material.

Hollis Weber, Jean. Technical Editors Eyrie (2002). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>Technical Writing

25.
#25114

Strategies for Peer-Reviewing and Team-Writing

When you peer-review other people's writing, remember above all that you should consider all aspects of that writing, not just--in fact, least of all--the grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

McMurrey, David A. Illuminati Online (2001). Articles>Collaboration>Editing>Writing

 
 NEXT PAGE »

 

Follow us on: TwitterFacebookRSSPost about us on: TwitterFacebookDeliciousRSSStumbleUpon