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.
Subject:RE: Review process for online help From:"Gilbert, Brian" <BGILBER -at- transunion -dot- com> To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:55:20 -0500
I guess I wasn't clear. If the SME is reviewing the online help, we
often (perhaps too often?) have multiple reviews. What I don't want is
for them to accidentally skip topics because they thought they had
already reviewed it or go to the same topic 10 or 15 times. When I have
had SMEs review the compiled help (at their request), they were late
with comments because it was just so darn big (hitting the same topic
multiple times), missed entire sections, or provided comments on the
formatting/style/links (you should add more links...like every time this
word is mentioned).
That's why I like Word/PDF for content reviews. (And, yes, there is a
final approval/review where the stakeholders get to review it in the
completed form.)
But that is what works for me. Others, in different industries or with
different SMEs, probably have a different process, and that works for
them.
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+bgilber=transunion -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+bgilber=transunion -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
Behalf Of Peter Neilson
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:58 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Review process for online help
Brian Gilbert wrote:
> SME ... didn't I already see this content
Yes, you did. Twice. First time, if you recall, you missed a crucial
error, where I'd left out a parameter to one of the options. The second
time you caught that error, as well as where I'd written flies instead
of files, but I'm sure there's still something else wrong in there. Our
hit rate is still too high. Please read it again, again.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Free Software Documentation Project Web Cast: Covers developing Table of
Contents, Context IDs, and Index, as well as Doc-To-Help
2009 tips, tricks, and best practices. http://www.doctohelp.com/SuperPages/Webcasts/
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual authors
and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write once, publish
to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as bgilber -at- transunion -dot- com -dot-
Free Software Documentation Project Web Cast: Covers developing Table of
Contents, Context IDs, and Index, as well as Doc-To-Help
2009 tips, tricks, and best practices. http://www.doctohelp.com/SuperPages/Webcasts/
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
