In this chapter, Barker goes over the essentials to Technical Writing Editing and how that might be different than traditional Editing. However, it also has many similarities.
Barker talks about an in-house style guide for companies editing procedures. It is important to stay consistent throughout the company and not have different departments completing their tasks differently. Consistency is always key. The following are steps for editing software documentation, found on page 270.
English Project guidelines
2. understand types of editing
plan your editing tasks
Develop the appropriate editing forms.
The goals on page 270 also mention the above consistency, but breaks it down to how the user perceives the document and the purposes of the information in the documents. The goals also include applicability to multi or cross-cultural readers, correspondence of tasks and activities in a manual of help system and smooth interaction with editors and writers, along with the rest of the team.
Page 271 has a table regarding four types of editing which include the following:
Managerial
Substantive
CopyProofreading
Most people understand number 1 and 3, but Substantive editing is developmental editing, which means editing language and information (page 272).
Editing takes time
Table 9.2 on page 277 gives estimates on editing a particular document and Substantive editing requires about 6-8 pages an hour, Copy Editing 1-3 and proofreading 5-10 pages per hour. This table also includes activities that are involved with each task such as for Managerial Editing overseeing production, Substantive includes reading drafts and suggesting content, Copyediting includes correcting sentence clarity and structure and Proofreading includes verifying changes against copyedited pages and checking for layout/graphics consistency.
Barker says conducting editing sessions are very important so that there are no distractions while editing. Most people have other projects they are working on and can also easily get distracted by their co-workers. A good set of large earphones and a checklist are all suggestions Barker makes to ensure good editing.
This chapter also includes editing Graphics, which is a part of the Substantive editor’s job.
Writing Vs. Editing is discussed in this chapter because many people combine the two, but there are clearly differences such as
As a writer you work on generating ideas and content and an Editor concentrates on document standards and comparing information. (Page 280 has a more comprehensive listing).
Many Tech Writers have to think about their audience being the world, so Barker provides tips on how to write for them, too.
use active voice
use articles wherever possible
use simple verb tenses
use language consistently
avoid lengthy compound words
use relatively short sentences
Chapter 9 also includes tips on Editing for Translation, problems with editing online systems, and discusses how do you know what’s correct?
Translation Editing includes “checking for characteristics that allow for language to be easily rendered into another language, (Page 292).”
Problems with editing online systems include
Heavy emphasis on editing index, different production process for planning and scheduling, etc. (a more comprehensive list is on page 293).
Constructive Attitudes are important in writing and editing because you will be critiqued and you will have mistakes in your document, it is important to look at it like you need to perfect the document rather than you made all of these mistakes or you think it’s already perfect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Actually, I thought this chapter was hilarious. It discussed a lot about the differences in writing vs. editing, but the part I thought was funny was discussing the relationships between writers and editors. This isn’t the first tech comm book I’ve read this in, and the sad fact is, it’s absolutely necessary and appropriate to discuss this. The job I have currently does not divide documentation responsibilities between writers and editors; we basically do all of it without multiple reviewers. Even with the setup we use, there are definite writing style differences, and relationships are key to a successful process.
I agree with Mary about documentation responsibilities between writer and editor are not usually divided, and most technical communicators wear both hats. Where I work, the situation is the same. We are our own keepers and disseminators of information and it is up to the author to cover all the bases in creating a usable and properly written and edited document. Knowing that makes the editing portion of documentation even more overwhelming. Considering the average length of time it takes to complete the different aspects of editing, no wonder some look for the shortcuts…mostly out of necessity, I’m sure. I can’t imagine being that close to having a document completed, which is probably already past deadline, and then saying I need 1-3 hours per page for copyediting. My boss would never allow that. And Campbell touched on how many consider proofreading a ‘non-task’ and easily interruptible.
I am the biggest offender of writing in a passive voice. One of my early tech communication instructors warned us about excessive use of to-be verbs. I know that I’m doing it but I have an utterly impossible time trying to write in the active voice. I’m forever going back and rewriting my sentences, and sometimes just give up out of frustration.
If anyone out there has any good tips or tricks to write in an active voice, I would love for you to share them!
The chapter discusses the different levels of editing, this was very interesting to me. But like Mary and Kathy, the job I have does not divide these documentation responsibilities. I am the documentation department. While there may be different writers/authors of a policy or procedure. I am the only one assigned to work through the different levels of editing. I have to work fast,efficient and as accurately as possible. I do have an editor at corporate level that does a final edit before the document is released to the approval cabinet. I then do a final proof reading before promoting to an effective status.
Kathy I have the same problem with the active/passive voice. I am still having prof. reminding me to write in the active voice. I hope that I have that mastered by graduation....LOL.
I think it is very important to be able to comprehend and react to editing. On the same note it seems just as important to be able to edit constructively in order to avoid conflict. It's interesting to find out that most people do not have seperate responsibilties and therefore wear both hats. I think that would strain a little on the process because you can often be the creator and revisor of your own work. I am not familiar with a lot of technical writing and therefore it's interesting to read just how the job flow takes place.
I am already familiar with the differences between editors and writers because I have read it in other books, but it seems important to know the distinction. It does seem that knowing this becomes less important in the workplace because many employees have the responsibilities of both writers and editors. I remember reading an article about editors when doing research for my "Techniques" article and noticing that the highest percent of workers consider themselves both writers and editors and the lowest percent (I've also heard from other sources that it can be as low as 4%) consider themselves just editors. I've also read different theories about if this number is growing or shrinking, but hopefully the skills an editor has will always be needed in companies.
I used to have a major problem with passive voice as well, but I think I have become better because of my mass communication courses--they really emphasize writing in active voice. We were asked once to go through an old high school paper or an early English composition paper from freshman year and find all of the times we used passive voice. It was eye-opening to see all the times I did it so when I'm writing formal papers now it's hard to forget.
This chapter was okay, considering how much there is to cover in editing. After reading some of the other comments on this post, I just want to point out the importance I see of keeping the writing and editing separate. My dept. went a few years without an editor (after having one for a few years) and ended up hiring one again after things got a little dusty. Everyone is already busy with all their writing...nobody ever had time to update the style guide, and things slipped by all the time. Now things are getting back on track.
It is funny to watch the relationship between writer and editor "flourish" though. :)
It's kind of odd thinking about editing; it's endless, tedious work, yet it requires at least a reasonable amount of intelligence to perform. And anybody who's smart enough to be and editor is smart enough to not want to edit. Sadly, it really is a necessary evil; you don't have to travel very far into the internet to figure that out *cough myspace cough*
Post a Comment