by Michelle Corbin, co-manager 

Hello SIG members!  It’s been a week since I returned home from the Technical Communication Summit, and I have recovered from the time away from the office and I wanted to share a few tidbits from the conference.

We attended leadership day on Sunday, and gathered invaluable information that will help us plan our next set of activities.  I learned a great definition of leadership from incoming president, Linda Oestreich:  “Leadership is the ability to cause others to act in desired ways for the benefit of the organization.”  Ultimately, each community leader was encouraged to determine what we wanted to do from year to year, and then just go do it;  that is, don’t do everything and don’t do what you think you “should” do, but just do what your members want you to do and do what your volunteers sign up to do.  So, Technical Editing SIG members, what do you want us to do? 

We had a very interesting keynote speaker, Simon Singh, who spoke about the making of his documentary about a mathematician solving the proof for an age-old mathematical equation. Although the specifics and details about that mathematical equation did not stick, I did take away two things from listening to his experiences – first, when choosing to edit something, you must consider the audience and context and make sure that it is right, and second, the technical accuracy of your content is critical as you run the risk of losing your audience’s trust.

A very popular session this year (as in past years) was “The Myths and Trends in the Changing English Language.”They talked through several common issues, such as ending a sentence with a preposition, use of the serial comma, and passive voice.  As a fellow “word nerd,” this session was a light-hearted treat, where I got to learn what “snarky” meant.  My one golden nugget from this session was to be reminded that “goodwill is more important than being right.”  As editors, we sometimes need the goodwill more than the rightness of a rule or guideline.

The Technical Editing SIG had its own session of progression table topics — all about editing!  Many thanks to our moderator, Diane Feldman, who helped coordinate these topics with the help of you, our SIG members!  Each table was full each time, and everyone seemed to really engage in the conversations.  Perhaps each presenter might consider summarizing their session in an article for our blog and newsletter! 

The closing keynote speaker (yes, we got two keynotes this year) was Ze Frank, who told two great stories about the designs of airline safety cards and about “accelerated anxiety” and the changing landscape of how everyone wants to join the media conversation – the explosion of blogs, MySpace, YouTube, etc.  He is a designer at heart, but an excellent communicator through his designs.  I laughed out loud frequently and left the conference with a smile on my face.

Although I attended other technical sessions, which I might try to summarize in other posts or articles, I wanted to highlight these above from my experience at the conference.   Did you attend the conference?  What was your favorite session?  Please consider sharing your experiences with our other SIG members!

Tom Johnson is the author and creator of the Tech Writer Voices podcasts, available at http://www.techwritervoices.com.  His most recent contributions are interviews of people at the STC Conference in Minneapolis, which are 5-10 minutes in length.  Other podcasts are longer, but almost always quite interesting. You can download them, play them directly on the site, or subscribe to the feed.

By Justin Baker, Senior Member

Reprinted from “Capital Letter,” the newsletter of the Washington, D.C. chapter of STC, by permission of author and editor.

What’s in a name? A lot. As technical editors, we know the importance of ensuring that the text we edit is clear. If we are performing developmental editing or copy (language) editing, we know that concepts must be expressed in such a way that the reader does not have to stop and figure out what is being said. We know that the more times a reader has to stop in a text to figure something out, the less the chance that the reader will leave the text with a solid understanding.

There are many elements to look for when editing a text at the development level or language level. One of these elements is terminology. The precise use of terminology is important. The more precise the terms, the more economical and efficient the text (Strunk and White, anyone?). The precise use of terms keeps text uncluttered and makes language more interesting to read and, in some cases, more valuable: the precise use of terms can make a text pregnant with meaning.

All of this, of course, applies to technical terms as well. Sometimes technical terms are misused. Other times a concept or model outgrows the original terms that were used to describe it. This is the case with the terms paper-based documentation and online documentation. These terms have been established in the technical-communication lexicon for years. The logic of their meaning was clear at the time that they emerged in the 1980s and early 90s: in addition to the centuries-old paper document, we also now had documentation on a computer (online). But these terms came into existence before the World Wide Web became dominant and hypertext became the norm for online documents, therefore eschewing the traditional linear, narrative structure.

In the days when text-based interfaces still existed, online documentation was much like paper-based documentation: it had a linear, narrative structure with traditional cross-references that did not lead a reader off on an entirely different path from the original text. At the time, it made sense to use the terms paper-based documentation and online documentation, because the only difference between the two was in their output: one was on paper, and the other was on a computer.

In the 1990s, the World Wide Web became a huge presence in the world of documentation. Because of hyperlinks, the term online documentation began to primarily mean a document that was not necessarily read in linear fashion. The term began to refer to the structure of a document, rather than the medium in which it was published. But the newer, predominant definition of online documentation conflicted with the older definition, which still existed.

These conflicting definitions have opened up a can of worms. Is it online documentation only if it has a hyperlinked structure? Is it online documentation if it is a document designed for print but posted to a Web site as a PDF document? Then there’s the quandary of whether a Web site that is printed out on paper is paper-based documentation or still online documentation.

From this confusion emerges the idea that perhaps it is not best to define a document by its published form. Perhaps it would be better to define a document by its structure—linear documentation or Web-based documentation. If you publish a traditional report on paper or post it to a Web site as a PDF document, it still has a linear structure. Even if you print an HTML document published on a Web site, that document still has a Web structure with hyperlinks, and the author’s intention is that readers will carve out their own narrative (logical) path. One could argue that the Web-based structure of the document is no longer present once it has been printed on paper, since you can’t click a hyperlink on a piece of paper. This is why I have included the author’s intention as part of the definition; if the author intends for readers to carve out their own narrative path, then the document still possesses a Web-based structure. And I argue that this contrasts with a traditional text that has many footnotes. The author of such a text intends for the reader to read in a primarily linear fashion, even if that reader skips ahead to other chapters. The text is still linear.

As technical editors and as members of a technical communication society, we may never be able to turn the tide of usage in the general business community. However, we should strive to use the most accurate terminology, at least within our own profession and communities. Electrical engineers strive to use the most precise terms in their field because it makes their communication more efficient. As technical editors and communicators, we must ensure that such precise language is used in all disciplines in which our work is based.

It is time to change the terms used to describe the different models of documentation. No more paper-based and online. It’s time for linear documentation and Web-based documentation. We as technical editors with our proverbial red pens have the power to help steer this change.

Justin Baker has been a technical writer and editor for nine years. You can reach him at bakerjustin@earthlink.net.

The Executive Director of STC sent out a survey late last week, asking for your input and feedback about the STC publications — the journal (Technical Communication), the magazine (Intercom), and other communications.  Please take a few moments to complete this survey!

Attached below is the e-mail announcement from STC:

*************************

The STC Board of Directors wants your input for its meeting on May 11th and 12th. Please take a moment to answer the questions at http://www.stc.org/stcmembers/surveys/pubsSurvey01.asp.

As you may recall, the Board has adopted a new information gathering process called Knowledge-Based Governance. Just before a Board meeting, the Board asks STC members questions that are related to topics that will be discussed during the Board meeting. For the upcoming meeting, the Board will begin discussing possible changes to the publications options offered as part of membership in STC. Please share your thoughts with the Board by participating in the survey.

The Board will use the survey results to prepare for discussions and decisions. This practice reflects a belief that a well-informed decision-making process, including significant input from Society members, is critical for a successful organization.

To make sure your voice is heard, we need your input by 12:00 Midnight (EDT) Tuesday, May 8, 2007. This will enable us to compile and consider STC members’ responses in time for the meeting.

We look forward to receiving your input. Thank you.
Susan Burton, CAE
Executive Director
Society for Technical Communication
susan@stc.org
STC fosters industry-leading technical communication by stimulating information exchange, cultivating educational programs, recognizing outstanding contributions, partnering with other organizations, funding research, and promoting the profession.

Hi everyone.  The SIG is slowly but surely venturing into the brave new world of technologies, and has run into a few snags along the way.  We have this great new blog-driven Web site and Newsletter, and we have started holding quarterly membership meetings, with an audio recording of those meetings.

Unfortunately, we have run into some technical difficulties with our audio recording.  We received a WAV file, which is over 60 MB in size, and are having difficulties posting it to our Web site.  Additionally, it would be really nice to cut out the up-front welcome, introductions, and ramblings and just focus on the really interesting part of the technical program. 

Doubly unfortunately, I have zero experience at working with audio recordings.  I knew to request one, and I have it, but I am stuck with how to best edit, manage, and deliver it to you our members.  So, I am sending up a flare, calling all audio gurus to step forward and help us get past these technical difficulties and provide the audio recording of our April 2007 membership meeting to all of our members.

Any takers?

A discussion list summary article by Tim Slager.

The question posted in our discussion list: Should editors edit on hard copy or soft copy?  The answer: Yes. Or, it depends. Essentially it is not a matter of should; it is a matter of personal preference and what works best in different situations.

The exchange on the STC Technical Editing SIG discussion list in response to this question went on for several days and included 20 posts, which is higher than average for our moderate-traffic list. Apparently, we tend to be passionate about how we do what we do.

Hard Copy

On one side are those who print a copy and mark it up. Several people mentioned that they notice more errors when they edit hard-copy documents. Hard copy also has these advantages:

• Easier to flip back and forth to compare for consistency
• Very portable
• Easier to see punctuation marks and spelling errors
• Easier on the eyes
• Less risk of computer-related stress injury for the editor
• Easier to mark suggested moves of text
• Often easier to see corrections in contrasting ink

But the tide is turning, even for those who prefer hard copy. Some people will compromise by marking up hard copy, and then scanning it to make a PDF file. One poster likes to edit hard copy and make changes in soft copy. Another marks up the hard copy and then transcribes comments to soft copy, both for legibility and to tone down “intemperate remarks” (on those rare occasions when one makes it onto paper).

Ultimately, it’s a matter of taste: an “online version of the document is helpful…but I still prefer to deliver markup on hard copy.” One poster still prefers “my trusty red pen.” Another suggests: “Perhaps that is in part due to eyesight issues and in part due to lifelong habits and learning modes.” Some prefer “a quieter, slower paced approach,” and believe it leads to better quality.

Soft Copy 

Not everyone wants a slower paced approach, however. When there is a lot of work to be done, speed counts. For some, hard copy may be the preferred approach, but “time and cost considerations” take precedence and “in my current job, I work most often with soft copies.” Several noted that soft copy is faster, and time is money.  “Online editing is a cost-saving measure,” said one poster “I can return a document for author review in nearly half the time it takes the other editors.”

The “flipping back and forth” in hard copy can be distracting to some. You might notice structural problems that, in some cases, are better left alone.

The tools that are available with a computer offer a big advantage to online editing. Several people noted that searching for repeated problems is easy with soft copy. One commented, “I’m sure I provide better edits now that I have access to PDF files” for searching. Change tracking tools can be troublesome at times but allow writers to view markups in much the same way they can with hard copy.

Certainly, for many of us soft-copy editing is a big part of our job responsibilities. In fact, later posts in the thread turned mostly to an exchange of advice for how to work with Adobe Acrobat, Word, and other online editing tools as well as with document management and version control software.

One editor took a job on the condition that she could “continue working… completely online.” She goes on to say, “I definitely prefer soft-copy edits, and will do a hard-copy edit only when specifically requested by the author.”

Another noted, “I’ll edit on hard copy if I have to, but I much prefer soft copy at this point.” I sense some ambivalence here, though: was there a change in preference? Someone else perceived that “younger team members do prefer soft copy; it seems they are more comfortable with the technique and it is quicker for them.”

There’s More Than One Way to Do Things

The person who observed the preference of younger editors for soft copy, counters by noting that “many others my age or older might still prefer hard copy.” Different people and different circumstances call for different approaches.

One editor summarizes it like this: “Both types of editing can yield acceptable results. As to preferences, different editors will give you different answers. I might give you a different answer at different times, depending on what I’m doing and how I’m feeling.”

Another says, “I think that both are acceptable….I prefer to edit hard copies when proofreading but I vastly prefer soft copies for comprehensive editing.”

This either-or view seems to characterize the variety in the larger community of editors. No one implies that their approach is the only one.

There seems to be a general, if at times reluctant, sense that the move is toward more online editing. One post states that the choice of software that is used for soft copy editing is pivotal, and  that such tools keep improving. It concludes with, “I doubt that there was much serious copy editing going on at PC screens 20 years ago, but ten years from now doing it on paper might also be a relative rarity.”

The first response to the question of which method was better begins with what sounds like a hard-line opinion: “Editing hard copy is best.” But this same post ends with “I edit by reading hard copy and making changes in soft copy. That seems to combine the best of the choices. Hope this opinionated answer helps.”

In the end, it seems to be a split opinion.

Hello!

Pat Moell and I are busy putting the finishing touches on the STC Technical Editing SIG events that we will host or participate in at the upcoming STC Technical Communication Summit.  We were excited to see that over 200 SIG members will be attending the summit, and we can’t wait to meet, greet, or eat with you!

We hope that you’ll stop by our Technical Editing SIG table and introduce yourself during the Welcome Reception, Sunday, May 13th, from 7:30 to 9:00pm.  This event is free and open to all summit attendees.  We’ll have some free giveaways for those who stop by.

On Monday, May 14th, at 12:15pm, we’ll be hosting 7 tables at the SIG Networking Luncheon.  You must purchase a networking luncheon ticket, which I believe you can still do at the summit, if you did not pre-purchase your ticket.  Each table we try to have a “host” or a “conversation-starter,” to make sure that everyone meets everyone else at the table and to get us all talking.   Right now, we definitely have 3 tables covered with hosts — do any of you plan on attending the SIG networking lunch on Monday, and would any of you be willing to host a table for us?  If so, please contact me at corbinm@us.ibm.com.

On Tuesday, May 15th, at 7:30am, we’ll be holding our annual SIG meeting (right now, it is in “Mezzanine 100A,” but check the program and registration information).  We will be providing a glorious European continental breakfast, to try to make up for the very early start to your day.  There might not be a free lunch, but there is such a thing as a free breakfast.  :)  We look forward to sharing the news and happenings of the past year with you, but also listening to your thoughts, ideas, concerns, and suggestions for how we can continue to grow and engage more of our SIG members.  Please join us!  We’ll have some more of those free giveaways for those who stop by!

We’re also in the process of preparing a flyer that contains information about the SIG, which also includes a single cheat-sheet of editing-related sessions that you might find interesting or useful to attend.

If you are not attending the conference, we’ll miss meeting you and hope to hear from you on the discussion list, via e-mail (corbinm@us.ibm.com or Pat.Moell@sas.com), or as comments to our blog!  We’ll try to summarize our experiences and post articles to our Web site and discussion list, too.

 If you are attending the conference, please come to one or more of these events and let’s get to know one another!