The document discusses the role of technical editors based on a presentation by David Farbey. It outlines the scope of technical editing including coordination, policy, accuracy and consistency checks. A survey of editors and writers found that most believe technical editing improves quality and clarity but some note it can delay work. Good relationships between editors and writers are described as collaborative and focused on improvement. The presentation concludes with example "letters" providing advice to organizations, audiences and writers.

1. Letters from the Editor
David Farbey
Technical Communication UK
Newcastle, UK
4th October 2012

2. Agenda
• Scope of technical editing
• Advice for editors
• Survey responses
• Letters from the editor
• Any questions?

3. Agenda
• Quiz!
• Scope of technical editing
• Advice for editors
• Survey responses
• Letters from the editor
• Quiz Answers!
• Any questions?

4. Quiz!
• The next slide shows an editor from a TV drama.
Can you name:
▫ The actor?
▫ The character?
▫ The TV show in which the character first
appeared?
• Answers at the end of the presentation!

5. Trust me I’m an Editor

7. Relationships
Organisation Audience
Editor
Content Writers

8. The Levels of Edit
Robert Van Buren and Mary Fran Buehler.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1980
http://www.technical-expressions.com/learn2edit/levels-of-
edit/levels_of_edit.pdf

9. Nine types of edit
1. Coordination
2. Policy
3. Integrity
4. Screening
5. Copy Clarification
6. Format
7. Mechanical Style
8. Language
9. Substantive
Van Buren and Buehler

10. General classes of edit
• Policy edit (includes Coordination and
Policy)
• Copy edit (includes Integrity, Screening,
Copy Clarification, Format, and
Mechanical Style)
• Developmental editing (includes
Language and Substantive)

11. An ideal workflow
1. Author and Editor plan work (Policy)
2. Author develops text
3. SME reviews
4. Author corrects
5. Editor reviews (Developmental)
6. Author corrects
7. Proofreader copy-edits
8. Organisation publishes

14. Editing is not fact-checking
Editors verify external facts 
Authors and SMEs confirm accuracy 

15. Editing is not evaluation
Grading the content 
Preparing the content for publication 

16. Mentoring, not Managing
Command and control 
Support and growth 

17. Building the Style Guide
Take decisions once 
Searchable collective memory 

18. Accuracy, Clarity, Consistency
Text conforms with principles 
Text is free of mechanical errors 

19. What about structured authoring?
Written in chunks, so edit in chunks 
Each chunk conforms to type 

21. What about Agile development?
Consider when the doc item is 
shippable
Consider when the whole doc is 
shippable

24. Having the last word
Ongoing skirmishes with other managers 
Clear organistional policy 

26. Technical Editing Survey
September 2012
79 responses in 3 days
indicative, not representative

27. Is your work routinely reviewed by a
subject matter expert?
• 69 responses
• No my work is not routinely reviewed – 5.8%
(n=4)
• Sometimes my work is reviewed but not
routinely – 15.9% (n=11)
• Yes my work is routinely reviewed – 73.9%
(n=51)

28. Is the work that you produce routinely
edited by another person?
• 68 responses
• Yes my work is routinely edited – 17.6% (n=12)
• Sometimes my work is edited but not routinely –
35.3% (n=24)
• No my work is not routinely edited – 41.2%
(n=28)

29. Comments from the survey
• Do you think that technical editing improves the
quality of your work?
• Do you think that technical editing makes your
job easier?
• If you are a writer, how would you describe
your relationship with your editor? If you are
an editor, how would you describe your
relationship with your writers?

30. Comments on quality of work
• “Undoubtedly. More importantly, a technical
edit can greatly improve the cohesiveness and
consistency of bodies of work (e.g.
documentation sets) that are produced by
multiple writers.”
• “Yes. Whenever I persuade someone to look
critically at my work I get feedback that helps me
improve the quality of that document. The
feedback is often applicable to other documents,
so the overall quality can be improved.”

31. Comments on quality of work (2)
• “When I've worked with a technical editor in the
past, it has definitely improved the quality of my
work. I learned most of what I know about
technical writing from the editors.”
• “Yes, it's vital both to ensure the quality of my
output and consistency across the company.”

32. Comments on ease of work
• “Not necessarily. Dealing with the editor's
comments can take quite some time.”
• “Doesn't necessarily makes it easier - but does
ensure a very high standard of content/quality.”
• “Yes, in that it provides an alternative view. No,
in that it often delays the work beyond the
required deadline.”

33. Comments on ease of work(2)
• “Two of the biggest challenges in my role are
knowing what the audience needs and knowing
whether my work is as clear and useful as I
intend. An editor could help significantly with
the second and at least give a second perspective
on the first.”
• “Yes, if the editor is good.”

34. Comments on relationships
• “Good -- so long as the editor is consistent from
one edit to the next, and keeps writers appraised
of changes to the standard style
guide/layout/content guidelines.”
• “Very good. They respect my ability to describe
subject matter clearly and I respect their in-
depth knowledge of the subjects.”

35. Comments on relationships (2)
• “Earlier in my career as a writer, I very much
valued the input and feedback given by editors.
it certainly helped me grow and develop.
However, editors are a dying breed now.”
• “It's one of mutual respect - and it works best
when the editor is empathetic: understanding
what the writer is going through.”

36. Comments on relationships (3)
• “I have had good, open relationships with my
editors over the years, although it was a learning
curve to get there and understand my role as
writer being edited. It helps that I want to learn
and improve.”
• “I have a great relationship with our editor. He
asks good questions, makes comments, generally
helps me improve the document, and accepts
comments on his comments when I think he's
mistaken.”

38. Dear Organisation
• Please give us clear guidelines on editorial
policy.
• Please help us reach out to our audience.
• Please give us the professional authority to do
our jobs.
• Please employ us!

39. Dear Audience
• Please let us know what you do.
• Please tell us how we can help you.
• Please give us your feedback.
• (We need your feedback!)
• (No, really, we do!)

40. Dear Writer
• Your editor is your friend.
• (Even if your editor is also your manager.)
• If there’s a style guide please use it.
• (If there isn’t a style guide please remind us to
create one.)
• If you have any questions, please ask.
• We’re only human so we can make mistakes too.
• (No, really we are only human. Honest.)

41. Quiz Answers
• The actor is Ed Asner
• The character is Lou Grant
• Lou Grant first appeared in the sitcom The Mary
Tyler Moore Show. The drama series Lou Grant
was a spin-off.

42. Any questions?
• David Farbey
• @dfarb
• david@farbey.co.uk
• www.marginalnotes.co.uk