Introduction
Be thorough! The writer is ultimately responsible for mistakes and errors in completed projects.
Creating a Perfect Document
Be sure that you use a review process to ensure that your document does what you want it to do.
There are five types of reviews:
1. Verification (e.g., accuracy)
2. Validation
3. Editing
4. Proofreading (e.g., spelling, punctuation)
5. Approval (e.g., getting clearance)
It is important to keep in mind that these reviews should be done in the above order so that the most critical issues are addressed first.
Can I combine a review?
You can, and sometimes it is effective. However, sometimes this is a more demanding and requires greater skill from the reviewer. When you try to compress all the reviews into fewer steps, something will usually suffer. If you choose to combine reviews, be sure your reviewer knows what you are really looking for from them – whether it is punctuality mistakes or accuracy of the information – they need to know. Having multiple reviewers is another way to ensure that more errors are found in less time. Failure to plan adequate review time is a guarantee that a document will go out with mistakes in it.
The rest of the chapter describes the review steps in detail:
Verification
• Checking for accuracy – information up-to-date, correct, dimensions accurate, eligibility requirements correct, etc.
• Various methods: compare the final draft to the original draft, check it against source documents, confirm numerical and statistical data, or assign a content expert to do the review.
You can combine them or perform them separately.
• Especially important in procedures, where perfection is vital.
• Sometimes, verification can be combined with editing, but it’s usually best if these are done in a separate review. You must be in an “accuracy” mindset when reviewing facts and important data.
Validation
• Checking for usability – policy or procedure understandable, well delivered, does it work in the real world, etc.
• Make sure the concept is understandable. Read the policy completely through to see if it makes sense or if anything is missing. Some writers can do this themselves, but it is easier if there are at least one or two other reviewers.
• Policies can be difficult to validate, as they’re often ambiguous or hard to measure. Usability testing is the best way to test a policy, so use this when possible. You can watch or gauge your reviewer’s difficulties or confusions and make the changes when appropriate. Honest feedback is important.
• Validating procedures does take longer because you’re actually testing the steps and sequence. Again, more eyes make for a better review. Use walk-throughs, observation, focus groups, and surveys to gauge responses. All of these steps require that you go through the basic steps of preparation, testing, debriefing, and documentation.
• Look for anything that indicates a problem on the user’s part: hesitation, guesswork, rereading, page flipping, or improvisation.
Editing
• Most are familiar with this – once you’re sure the content is correct and understandable, you can move on to editing. Editing presents a unique challenge – improve the policy without changing the meaning.
• Use this review to check for format, wording, consistency, flow, cohesion, layout and visual appeal.
• Number of edits depends on the document and project. Use the number you feel is appropriate.
• Approach editing with great precision. Know what you’re editing for, and plan time to do it. Make sure you are going to be uninterrupted when editing so that you can give the document your full attention.
• Keep an eye out for detail for important matters mechanical correctness, not trivial ones. Be sure that you are not looking for small changes like typographical errors in editing – save that for the proofreading phase.
• Review the page layout, look at the formats, consider the design elements, and scrutinize everything for consistency and logic.
Proofreading
• Proofreading is an important, although not necessarily the most enjoyable, task. Most writers consider proofing insignificant. However, if you do not spend time proofreading your document, you may let small mistakes get through. This can question your credibility with your audience. Consider proofreading your final walk-through of your document.
• Decontextualizing is the secret to effective proofreading. Reverse the learned habit of reading for meaning and concept. Take the letters, numbers, and words out of context and consider them as strictly letters, numbers, and words.
• To proofread, you can try many different methods – read backwards, read aloud, read into a tape recorder, read with a partner, read diagonally, turn the page upside down, photocopy it, scan it, or take frequent breaks.
• Look for every single imperfection, typographical errors, punctuation, spacing, spelling, agreement, page breaks, titles, misplaced words and phrases, alignment, names, numbers, typestyle, typesize, and margins. When proofreading graphics, be sure you view all details – enlarge the graphic, make certain all numbers are correct, every line is plotted accurately, every item is correctly labeled, and the information in the graphic is consistent with the text.
• The most common errors: transposed letters, duplicate letters, omitted letters, and substitute letters. All proofreaders also have their own ‘blind spots’ – know what yours are and make a mental rule so that you can remember what is correct.
• If you choose to proofread your own material, be sure you are very thorough. It’s best, however, to hand it off to someone else to proof if you can.
• All writers have deadlines. Make sure that you always allow some time for proofing, no matter what.
Approval
• Getting clearance is the last step of documentation review. Send your document to the designated approvers when you’ve completed the above four review steps. However, be sure that you keep in constant communication with your reviews throughout your documentation process. Ask for their input, or consult with them if you need to – approvers don’t like surprises.
• It is best to have a formal procedure in place for approving documents. Make sure your procedure outlines time frames and the approval cycle so that there are minimal questions from the approvers. Once these approvers receive a draft, be sure they know you are expecting their input and that all comments will be considered.
• Slow response time is usually a problem. Most managers and approvers are busy, and will often be swamped with other work and your review will just be one extra thing. Strive to make your document approval an easy process by making a form that makes the approval quick and painless. See the sample form in Chapter 8 for ideas.
• Sometimes approvers disagree on documents – don’t let this bother you. Opinions are what you are looking for with your document review, and it is better to get these opinions and thoughts out in the open before the policy is in place and it then becomes more difficult to change. Stay on top of the approval by coordinating and communicating amongst the approvers. Analyze their responses and look for validity and set up meetings if your approvers require one to come to a consensus.
• You can also have unofficial approvers for your document. Frontline managers, group leaders, or even informal clique leaders can be key supporters for the document. Keep these people in mind in your writing and review process as well – always keep those lines of communication open.
The Critical Decision: Who Reviews?
It is always better to have others review your work. Their eyes are fresher and they are not too closely tied to the doc. Sometimes, it is not always possible to have other reviewers, and when you MUST review your own work, you’ll have to exercise twice your normal discipline.
Submitted by Team 1: Beeman & Xiong
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I know all about slow responses in proof-reading and approval. If a company wants to speed up the process, the top management should empower their employees to a certain level. However, there is a fine balance that needs to be kept in order to not compromise the quality of documents. I liked this chapter. It helps the writer to have a handy checklist and go through the life-cycle of the document. this chapter also shows that technical writers are so much more than just writers: they are project managers and diplomats. A good technical writer knows when to delegate and how to ask for help in a way that others get the work done as well.
I definitely think that proofreading enhances credibility, even on the little things like emails. Last year I searched for someone to do some drywall work on my house on Craigslist. I emailed some potential workers. The person I chose to do the work for me was the one who responded with the most grammatically correct email. Some were so bad that they were barely legible. I know that writing has absolutely nothing to do with the work I was asking for, but the email was the only thing I had to base each applicant on, and I wanted someone who was going to approach the offer professionally.
Having a second set of eyes on a document is very helpful. You get so used to looking at the same document for so long, you could potentially pass by an obvious error. A second person can help find these things you may have begun to bypass.
This chapter was very informative! I don't know that I've ever reviewed my work (or anyone else's) in such a methodical way. Typically, I've tried to do it all in one or two passes. Not anymore!
Mary, I know what you mean about judging people by the quality of their writing. It's surprising how little effort some people put into it, even though it creates such a strong impression. It's really bad when a writer's errors create a bad impression for an entire organization.
I liked that Campbell differentiated between the five different types of reviews and the description given of each. Like Karen, I don't think I've ever been so methodical in my reviews, and I think this chapter offered some very helpful advice and guidelines. I appreciated the advice given under the proofreading section (what to look for and how).
If you're looking for credibility in your work, this chapter is one that you'll need to be attention to. The first time my work was edited by professionals I thought that I must be a terrible writer. Yes, it can be difficult to be edited. But the problem with so many documents is that the writer seems to really think they know what they are writing about only to find that after some close scrutiny that your work of art really didn't cut it. I liked the sample approval form. This type of form really lends some credibility to the approval process. When a reviewer has an official form that spells out the needs of the review and gives dates for return, the process can really move in a professional way. I also appreciated the advice to "move to a new location" to do your work. I've often found that moving to a place with minimal distractions can help you get your work done.
Having just written my APP I can appreciate this chapter. So far the document has gone thru 2 people and has 3 more to go. Right now there is a time constraint, but I want there to be accuracy also. There must not be any mistakes otherwise there will be the question of validity throughout the document.
This is an in-depth summary to a serious topic. Early in my career I learned the value of a thorough review cycle. I was the project lead on a total quality management handbook -- of all things. After we received the first books I was reading through it and discovered a typo in the first few pages of the book. And this was after it went through editors, proofreaders, etc. Because of the topic we had to reprint it. Fortunately, my boss did not deduct the cost of the reprint from my paycheck. It was $38,000, and I still kept my job!
This chapter on the different types of review reminded me of the editing course I was in last semester that went over the different types of edit. Although I know there are differences, there were definitely some similarities between the two.
I also thought it was interesting that Campbell encourages us to read backwords and read diagonally, etc. I heard to read to read out-loud with a partner, etc-but not the other suggestions. I thought these practical tips could absolutely be helpful.
Gary, that's an expensive mistake! You're lucky to have had an understanding boss. But your story also proves a point: there will always be errors, even when all of the review steps are completed well. I view one job of the editor as reducing the number of mistakes in the document by the maximum amount allowable under the time and budgetary constraints of the project. There comes a point in every document review cycle when everyone must say "when". Living with the fact that we cannot create perfect documents (if they're long, anyway), is one of the lessons in zen that technical communicators internalize throughout their careers.
A lot of concerns of credibility have surfaced as a result of this chapter. I agree that once we read errors in a document, particularly a textbook, we don't let go of them easily.
What I wanted to briefly touch on here is the question, Can I combine a review? This, to me, was incredibly important to bring up. To me, the deciding factors are levels of experience and size of the project. If a team has done the review process many times in the past with success, I think that combining a couple of review procedures may prove to be both successful and efficient; however, regardless the experience level of the reviewers, it is important to approach this strategy with caution. Everyone is human and capable of error.
If the project is a rather large one, I would usually advise against combining review procedures. This makes me think of the recall test, where the subject is asked to remember a couple sets of information, then later asked to recall multiple sets of information. It's always more difficult to deal with a flood of information, so when trying to review a large project using a number of strategies, the process can either get messy or inaccurate.
I feel that I am not always the best writer who applies correct grammar, punctuation etc. I am aware it does not create the best impression of me for a lot of people. However, I think that by doing more writing particularly in the appropriate genre (technical communication), my writing will eventually improve.
From this chapter I took away that “proofreading” is not just “check for misspelled words”. Author indicates that verification and validation steps are often done simultaneously but have different goals. I have applied similar steps to various types of documents in the past. When it comes to editing and proofreading, I believe I still have a lot of work to do especially with the editing part (looking forward and dreading the editing class at the same time). Overall, I found number of tip sheet extremely helpful for present and future projects. Great summary and information!
I also took the editing class last semester. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. Campbell's comparison of editing and proofreading were somewhat different from what we learned in the editing class. Campbell says to ignore "trivial" items such as transposed letters or typographical errors because they will be corrected during proofreading. I disagree that these are trivial and feel that they should be corrected whenever someone notices them. The textbook last semester says that "proofreaders introduce change only if the copyeditor has overlooked errors." I guess this goes to show that it is important to clarify what your expectations are for those who are editing your work, since even among the "experts" there are differences in definition and expectation.
Post a Comment