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: Getting more than nits from reviews? From:"Stansbury, Stan" <SBS -at- dolby -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Wed, 23 May 2007 09:42:01 -0700
I think you're absolutely right. And there's good backup from
educational psychology. A guy named John Gardner identified 7 different
kinds of intelligence, any you'll get much better information if you let
each reviewer give you what they've got in their strongest way.
If a person is a writer, then you'll get good written comments. If a
person is a talker they can tell you what they can't write. If a person
is kinesthetic, they can draw you a picture or act it out for you easier
than they can write it down.
I see working with each reviewer's personal style as a core competency
for technical writers, and so I put a lot of energy into it.
Stan Stansbury
> -----Original Message-----
> My theory is that some people are either intimidated by the thought of
> reviewing the technical part of the document, or are just intimidated
by
> the
> review process itself. After all, most people are not taught how to
review
> documents!
>
> For those reviewers who won't--or can't--focus on the content in their
> area
> of expertise, I schedule a meeting with them and go through the
document
> with them one-on-one. Then I can say, "okay, yeah, that needs to be
fixed,
> but don't worry about that. Let's get back to your technical
expertise: is
> this part (whatever) accurate technically?" That approach usually
works,
> and
> the next time a review is needed, they need less "help" from me.
>
> So, there is no single, really simple answer to this problem. It
really
> does
> depend on the reviewers, the environment, and one's role (or status)
in
> the
> organization. Sometimes the approach has to be tailored to the
reviewer to
> work effectively.
-----------------------------------------
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you
are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are
not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or
taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
Now shipping: Help & Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help & Manual: http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-