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: most effective method for SME review? From:Tom Johnson <tomjohnson1492 -at- gmail -dot- com> To:TECHWR-L Writing <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:31:38 -0700
I have Confluence as well as that Talk plugin. This is probably the one
method that I haven't tried. How do you get your content in and out of
Confluence to facilitate the review?
I could output my content as HTML and paste it into the source of a
Confluence page. To make any edits to the content, though, I'd need to make
them in my source and then regenerate the HTML back into the page.
This workflow seems problematic. Suppose someone makes a comment that says
"grammar error here..." Here's are my options:
- If I fix the grammar error on the Confluence page itself, I can't just
copy that generated HTML output back into my source. So I'd have to make
the update in two places -- in Confluence and in my source.
- If I fix the error in the source and regenerate the HTML output, and then
paste that generated HTML back into the Confluence page, it will remove the
Talk annotation.
How are you getting around this problem? (If you're authoring and
publishing natively in Confluence, this workflow might not be an issue.)
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
wrote:
> Inline comments in Confluence (a newish feature, though previously
> available using the Talk plugin). It's quite similar to shared review
> in Acrobat, which I often couldn't get to work on a shared file.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Tom Johnson <tomjohnson1492 -at- gmail -dot- com>
> wrote:
> > What has been your most effective method for reviewing docs with subject
> > matter experts? I feel like I've tried everything and haven't really hit
> > upon the best way of doing it.
> >
> > Some approaches I've tried:
> >
> > - comments forms on web pages
> > - direct edits of source files on Github
> > - in-person visits at my desk
> > - email
> > - JIRA tickets
> > - Word docs
> > - comments on PDFs
> > - Google docs
> > - Beegit
> > - focused meetings
> > - over-the-shoulder sessions
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
> content development | http://techwhirl.com
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as tomjohnson1492 -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
