Re: Resolving edits

["W. Michaels" <stinky5 -at- TELEPORT -dot- COM>]

At 04:14 PM 4/20/95 -0700, Charles Webster wrote:
>He/She is the "software
>quality assurance" engineer and as such insists that the
>quality of the manual is within his/her purview.

>My position is (and has been for the last twelve years of
>being a tech writer) that I will accommodate a reviewer's
>edits "within reason" and that as the writer _I_ have the
>final say in what goes in the manuals.

I agree. If this person has something technical to add or has pointed out
areas that were unclear, great, that's why you sent the manual around to
begin with. But, you it sounds as if this person wants to tweek your writing
style, or some nonsence.
Quality of the *software* might include the manuals to a point, but this
person can't try to do everything. Some engineers can write and some make
pretty good suggestions, but if and how you incorporate their comments is up
to you.

You know the material intimately and know which words are used consistently
throughout, how you've structured the procedures, and how you explain a
concept. You should have given a specific example, I don't know what I'm
saying, but I do agree with you.

Whenever I get software to document, I've always got a list to hand to the
engineers, suggesting they change the names of the dialog boxes, or
rearrange the interface in some other way, but I sure don't impose my
writing authority to their style of labeling or design. (Even though they
obviously need help.)
;)


``````````````````````````````````
  W. Michaels
  stinky5 -at- teleport -dot- com

``````````````````````````````````