Re: Re. Revision bars

["Travis D. Epes" <TravisE -at- AOL -dot- COM>]

On 03-17-95 Geoff Hart wrote:
<<     Al Wilson wondered <paraphrase> if there was any standard <<     for
the use of revision bars. Frankly, I find them damn near <<    useless for
most editing I do. If I used revision bars, each page <<    would have a thin
red vertical line running down the left margin <<    and sometimes even down
the right margin too! <grin>

<<     I imagine they'd be useful in light editing, but I don't get to do
<<     much of that
- - - - - - END OF INSERT - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     The marking of revisions to Navy Technical Manuals is required.
 According to MIL-M-38784(x), the primary method of marking text revisions in
tech manuals written to MIL-M-15071(x) or to MIL-M-24100(x) is through the
use of "change bars" in the OUTER margin. Thus the revision bars ARE found in
both margins, but not both margins of a single page!
     Changes to illustrations (photographs, schematics, and other types of
illustration) is normally done with "pointing hands" or with change bars that
draw attention to the area changed.
     That is the only standard for "revision bars" with which I am familiar.
Hope this answers the question more realistically than quoting "Shoe".  I
like him too but I would hate to have to try to get paid for following his
advice!  {;- )}
     BTW, Geoff also asked about "the average reading level . . ."  The
requirement for the targeted writing level for Naval Technical Manuals, again
according to MIL-M-38784 and MIL-M-15071(x) [the last time I looked  anyway]
is the ninth grade!
     I have been down and out and away from my references since last June,
recovering from either a stroke or Gillian-Barre syndrome (depending on which
doctors you are talking to). The references were good at that time.  They may
have changed since then.  If you need an update, email me and I'll find the
answer.

Trav Epes