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: Peer Review Process/Best Practices From:"heidi arnold" <heidi -dot- w -dot- arnold -at- gmail -dot- com> To:"Jill Mohan" <jillemo -at- gmail -dot- com>, techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:07 +0100
sorry i need to clarify this ;
the last time i was asked to clarify something or give an specific example
in an online discussion was actually _never_, so maybe there are some
clairvoyants out there, which wd be cool if true, or else applied blank
space is useful to making statements mean what is most useful to the reader,
or else, most likely, there are a LOT of good fiction writers here ; send me
your novels, i´d love to read them
i was referring specifically to certain deadline-focused conditions of
publication in an academic publishing house, which is the only corporate
business i know, but there are rigorous requirements peculiar to that
business which are not generalizeable
i can say that freelance writing is much more chaotic and pleasantly
free-form
i can also say that my last paycheck was in 2005; which is why i´m signing
off... for the reasons above and this example, i just don´t feel that this
is a conversation
best wishes and regards; and i would read your novels
heidi
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:49 AM, heidi arnold <heidi -dot- w -dot- arnold -at- gmail -dot- com>
wrote:
> jill,
>
> i mean to be gentle but the process you describe sounds so far from a
> professional working corporate team that it is more like a church council or
> PTA meeting where people go to hang out but it doesnt really matter if
> anything gets done or when or how
>
> in that case people who have real business concerns are off working
> somewhere else with other people
>
> i would take a stony, critical look at this and either find another job or
> else do some uncompromising reform, unless the PTA sociality is critical and
> then you are where you are
>
> myself, i WOULD refuse to work with that kind of incompetence
>
> just my 2 cents
>
> heidi
>
>
> On 2/26/08, Jill Mohan <jillemo -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> >
> > This question may provoke only laughter - BUT, here goes...
> >
> > Is there anybody out there using a slightly formalized process for
> > getting
> > documents reviewed prior to delivery? If you are, can you share some
> > best
> > practices?
> >
> > Here is what we do currently - perhaps you could find remedies for
> > glaring
> > errors?
> >
> > Current state is -
> >
> > 1. I send out a doc to a mixed team of talent and suits.
> > 2. Get silence for weeks.
> > 3. I work the charm offensive going desk-to-desk asking for feedback
> > on areas that match expertise of desk's occupant.
> > 4. Trickle of feedback comes in from the charmed.
> > 5. I incorporate that feedback and recirculate the doc.
> > 6. Another few days of silence.
> > 7. Deadline gets moved up on system's delivery.
> > 8. Team asks for another copy of the doc.
> > 9. Various members demand changes to the system's interface or
> > functionality due to things they hadn't noticed until they read said
> > document.
> > 10. Engineers get the changes made.
> > 11. Suit suddenly appears and makes changes to "formalize" the crap
> > out of a user's guide.
> > 12. I try to aggregate five to six different reviewer's notes -
> > deciding on importance and relevance.
> >
> > Thanks much,
> > Jill Mohan
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats
> > or
> > printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
> > Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.
> > http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
> >
> > True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
> > Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
> > documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as heidi -dot- w -dot- arnold -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > or visit
> > http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/heidi.w.arnold%40gmail.com
> >
> >
> > To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >
> > Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> > http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> www.heidiarnold.org
> www.vesperwilderness.blogspot.com
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-