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.
In 'the old model', did people really send the whole manual out for review
to a number of SMEs, or did they send relevant chunks of it out? Personally,
MOST of the time I used chunks, but infrequently it appears that the one SME
is responsible for the entire content. The question then becomes, what is
the relevant chunk size, and I cannot recall a single case where most topics
had a different SME. So, 'manual' is too large a chunk, and 'topic' is too
small. Ye Olde Chapters were reasonably close to the right size for most
properly structured documents.
Regardless of chunk size, media or even if it is documentation, code or
physical product, there is a 'draft/prototype' <==> a 'review/test' cycle
iteratively performed until the measurement of the product is within
tolerance of the specification. I fail to see how this will ever change,
merely that the number of iterations has been drastically reduced through
decades of study of the best practices and the development of methodologies
specifically to address this reduction in cycles, and thus lead time / cost.
IME for documentation the first review can sometimes lead to a substantive
edit, which then requires a second review for signoff which may require a
minor edit requiring no follow-up review. Thus the "Outline (very useful for
managers to then use as a basis for projecting completion dates) -First
draft-Second-draft- Camera ready (produced)" is most certainly still with
us.
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+sh1448291904=gmail -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+sh1448291904=gmail -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
Behalf Of Erika Yanovich
Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2016 12:08
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Developments in the review cycle
In the "good old days", tech writers followed the Outline-First
draft-Second-draft-Camera ready model. We would submit an entire publication
for review (perhaps with some minor TBDs inside) and the world was a simpler
place.
What I see nowadays is more dynamic: partial drafts (or bunch of topics)
sent to different reviewers at different times. The stages are blurred and
the follow-up more complicated.
I know some of you don't believe in complete publications anymore, just in
separate topics that get compiled daily (or whenever) into a larger entity,
but publications are still alive and kicking out there.
So my questions are:
1. Do you also see this transformation?
2. If yes, how do you cope with it?
3. Should we manage each chunk separately according to the old model (sounds
a bit crazy) or replace the old model with a new one?
Erika
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
content development | http://techwhirl.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
