Re: Format for receiving document reviews

[Jean Weber <jhweber -at- WHITSUNDAY -dot- NET -dot- AU>]

I am the editor on a large project. Because I don't work in the same
location as the writers (who are in at least two different cities), the
only practical way for me to edit their documents is in electronic form.
They are using Microsoft Word (I know, I know...), so it's quite easy to
use the revision feature to mark my edits and insert questions and
comments.

I'm not sure how well that would work (from the writer's point of view) if
the document were being reviewed by several people at the same time, but it
works fine for one at a time. If you use the serial review process (see
Mark Forsyth's comments attached below), and the reviewers remembered to
choose different colors to mark their comments, it could work quite well.
And if a copy were archived each time the file was passed to the next
reviewer, you wouldn't have the hard-copy problem of someone losing the
only marked up copy. Mark's other negative comments would still apply,
however.

The method does leave the electronic equivalent of a paper trail for audit,
if the editor's version of the file is copied to an archive before the
writer works on it.

> Is there a good method for an online review?

You could do the same with RTFs from help projects, though it would be a
bit messier (because of the difficultly the reviewer may have in working
out what topic is which -- especially the popups). Ship the reviewer a
compiled help file to review, and the RTF to mark up in Word.

> For example, for help files, we don't want anyone mucking around with our
.RTF files

As long as the reviewer works on a copy of the file, what's the problem?

Regards, Jean

Jean Hollis Weber
P.O. Box 640, Airlie Beach, QLD 4802
Australia
Ph. (07) 4948 0450
Fax. (07) 4948 0435
jhweber -at- whitsunday -dot- net -dot- au

----------
Snipped from comments by Mark Forseth <markf -at- merge -dot- com>

> SERIAL REVIEW
> One copy of a manual is circulated to all names (SMEs) listed on the
> reviewer sign-off sheet accompanying the manual. The review must be
> completed within a specified time. Reviewers initial each comment they
make
> in the manual.
>
> Pros:
> Less-paper office (LPO); requires only one copy of a manual for review.
> Eliminates the need to collate multiple reviewers' markups, from multiple
> copies, onto one master markup.  Successive reviewers see previous
> reviewers' comments.
>
> Cons:
> One lax reviewer can hold up the entire process, or worse, lose the copy
> with others' labors written all over it. Reduces review time for each
> reviewer (compared to other methods). Early reviewers don't see later
> reviewers' comments. Other's comments may adversely influence successive
> reviewer input. Reviewer input and attention to detail wanes as the
manual
> moves throught the serial progression.
>