Chapter 8 Campbell: Did I Forget Anything?
by Mary Dobbins
Creating a Perfect Document
There are 5 different types of review which should be done sequentially so most critical issues are addressed first:
Verification – Reviewing in the proper order saves time. Combining reviews for format, grammar, punctuation, accuracy, etc., is much more demanding and leaves room for error unless multiple reviewers are used.
Validation – Checking for accuracy involves making sure information is up to date, dimensions given are accurate, requirements are correct, etc. This can sometimes be combined with editing but usually works best as a separate task. User errors require altering wording to make document clearer; policy/procedure errors require change in content or sequence. Check for usability using ideally one or two other reviewers by: trying to gauge by their reactions if something is unclear, soliciting comments, or observing.
Editing – Be careful not to alter the meaning, edit for format, wording, consistency, flow, cohesion, layout, and visual appeal. Narrow the scope using a format edit, language edit, style edit, etc. Use your knowledge about the audience to guide your editing. Use consistent marking and a style sheet. Read aloud and use different colored pen marks. Review page layout, design elements, consistency and logic.
Proofreading – Credibility is the most important reason for proofreading. Decontextualizing, meaning taking letters, numbers and words out of context instead of grouping them together, is an effective proofreading tool. You can also read backwards, real aloud into a tape recorder or to a partner, or read diagonally. Look for typos, punctuation, spacing, spelling, agreement, page breaks, titles, misplaced words and phrases, alignment, names, numbers, typestyle, typesize, and margin errors. Don’t skip proofreading!
Approval – Communicating with approvers throughout the document process is important to avoid a possible rewrite. The approval process should be a formal procedure which includes time frames and encourages approvers and managers to solicit comments from their own areas. To facilitate quick approval, use a form that’s easy to complete. For lengthy documents, include a summary memo. Coordinate conflicting responses among approvers.
If possible, have others review your document rather than trying to do it yourself. Review the checklists at the end of the chapter for step-by-step guidance in completing the review types above.
8 comments:
This chapter discussed the challenge of proofreading and how difficult it can be. Campbell focussed on how as a proofreader you must concentrate and read your document several times. All of us get busy and would rather skip the review part, but now is the time to ensure that a quality document has been written and that it is credible in the user's eyes. Campbell suggests that user's will excuse a typo but the use of the wrong words would be deemed unacceptable and the writer and document would lose credibility. Campbell has made it quite clear how important it is to follow the 5steps of review.
Wow. I learned good information from this chapter to apply to upcoming projects at work and in this course. The tip sheets at the end clarify what I need my documentation project to accomplish and are useful as I write the instructions. As I read, I wondered how many businesses do these thorough reviews due to lack of enough personnel and time. The legalities of getting a document or instructions perfect are incentives, but what about a policy and procedures document in place just to say there is one? I think Campbell's validation procedures such as surveys and observations would go a long way to writing a useful document. I agree with the idea that trying to accomplish all the review items by oneself isn't the best way to proceed. For myself, the more I look at something I've written the less I see! Having others with fresh eyes and different areas of experience and expertise review is the smart way to proceed.
Having others (people who didn't write the document) read over something is key. It gives a new perspective to the document and they can find errors that perhaps the writers don't notice because they have been working on the document so much. I think we were talking about this in class or in one of my other classes, but sometimes that is hard to do because coworkers have their own work to do and don't always have the time or enough investment in the work to look at a document and proofread it. However, working in a group where every member has something invested in the final project may lead to better reviews (maybe this was in another chapter, but I really like this idea). These five different types of reviewing seem to overlap each other sometimes, but that means that things are being checked twice at least! The "approval" step is new to me, but is obviously an important step in the review process. I like the idea of having supervisors look over things to be sure that as many eyes as possible can see a document and make sure it is perfect.
This chapter was very helpful for me. It is nice to have a sort of list of edits to make as you complete a document. For me, I realize I focus on certain types of edits depending on what I am concentrating on at the time. Each step is very important, and it is useful to have a written list of what items to pay attention to.
I haven't been able to figure out what Campbell meant when she said one method of proofreading is to read backwards...whether paragraph-by-paragraph, sentence by sentence, or word by word. I understand what she meant by decontextualizing – not reading for meaning or comprehension, but to consider the text strictly numbers, letters, and words. I tried reading backwards, and by doing so, lost my ability to read for meaning, so I have to assume the reading backwards is just to check for spelling errors or using the wrong word. I like the idea of reading aloud. I actually tried that once on a document I was preparing at work. Reading it aloud, I noticed a section that didn’t seem to make sense to the point I had to go back and re-read. That told me I needed to revise the sentence.
I totally agree with Campbell that even one typo in a document will get noticed and readers are not afraid to point it out. We do it at work all the time. It is especially funny when the typo causes a slightly different connotation…like the example Campbell used on Page 271 about the button holer. Too funny.
The guidelines for reviewing your own work at the end of the chapter are a good reminder about staying fresh when you don’t have multiple reviewers. I know of numerous times I’ve put a project down, thinking it was done, to come back with a fresh attitude and set of eyes only to find an error I’ve overlooked after numerous reviews and edits.
I can definitely attest to the fact that proofreading is a pain in the bottom. I think a lot of us may be too proud to go back and make changes to something. Editing can be seen as one of many steps in a process in order to ensure a well done document. Personally, I feel I could edit and edit something over and over again and if I don't cut myself off I would never have something to turn in. It's nice to know there are steps provided to streamline this process and ensure that what's being edited is necessary.
At my job, we used to have proofers verify our work before it got sent out. Now, we have typists and verifiers, but we don't have someone verifying our own work before we send it to the press. I feel that it is still crucial to have someone check for layout and color matching as well as spacing issues. These things get missed when we do everything ourselves now. Because our order is often smaller than most other forms of publication, it is easy to have our customer catch the mistakes than say in a book. Different people need to look at our order so that they can be like the customer, quality is key and we don't always catch everything because unfortunately, we're human. Editors make mistakes, too, but as long as you didn't do the original work, it seems that you can look at it with more objective and find things the originator didn't.
I loved the advice on proper proofreading, especially things like reading into a tape recorder and reading backwards. Granted there is no "fast" way to proof read, but those tips will at least make the time spent used better.
Post a Comment