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.
Checking the checkers through inaccurate information
Subject:Checking the checkers through inaccurate information From:Carl Millholland <millholland -at- ACRONET -dot- NET> Date:Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:18:06 -0600
> I often get little feedback even from the client, let alone the beta testers.
> They pretty much leave the docs up to my discretion, without saying much
> unless I ask for input on specific areas.
>
> I did one project for another client with a disturbing habit of not reading
> review drafts, and just OKing them. Two or three reviews later he'd see some
> glaring issue and come all unglued, even though he'd already OK'd the text
> more than once.
This sounds all too familiar. For time to time I put a little
documentation joke in my draft intended for a technical review. This
tells me how closely the reviewers are looking at the documentation. Has
a real example from my latest project:
convention
parameter_ICCrd structure member to set:
0x00 = direct convention
0x01 = inverse convention
0x02 = Shriner's convention
This came back without comment. I then sent an email to the reviewers
saying, "Are you sure about this?" If nothing else, it puts them on
notice that I know they aren't covering everything carefully. I always
mark this on my own copy of the draft (and I mark it with a Frame
Comment marker, which I use for a variety of things in a first draft).
I have a couple of questions about this technique:
1. Would you consider this unethical or underhanded? (I have a pretty
good reputation with these people for a solid final product, so I
have a little more leeway here. I'd *never* try this with a new
client.)
2. If you did do this sort of thing, how to handle a "miss?"
3. Any other, perhaps more up front, methods for checking the checkers?
Carl
--
Carl Millholland
Technical Publishing Services
11400 47th Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53142
(414) 697-9948
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
