Category Archives: Levels of Edit

My Top 3 Editor Roles

In 2016, the STC Technical Editing SIG held a Watercooler Chat entitled, Technical Editors Wear Many Hats. We discussed the evolving role of an editor and various roles technical editors play. Some common responsibilities:

  • proofreader
  • trainer
  • peer reviewer
  • writer
  • video creator

Most days, I juggle several editorial roles. Here are my three favorites.

1. Peer Reviewer

Peer reviews–or feedback–isn’t formal editing. I critique stories, blog posts, articles, chapters, or online course material. Sometimes, it’s an early draft and my colleague wants another read to help her organize the piece. Other times a fellow writer emails the story for me for one last review, to make sure the piece flows.

The side benefit? I read material before it’s published!

2. Proofreader

It’s all in the details! A client sends me a draft article or a link to their website. The task? Proofread for grammar, spelling, and punctuation matter.

One client asked me to proof their initial blog posts. I received the link to the newly-launched website and began reading. One post had this bold title: Heart Attach [sic]. I emailed a screenshot to the client before adding this error to my list. “Yikes! I proofread that title many times! It’s supposed to be ‘Heart Attack’.” Every writer needs a proofreader!

We can’t trust the automated spell checkers to pick up all our errors. ‘Attach’ is a good word but not the right word for this context!

3. UX (User Experience) Editor

I hadn’t thought of UX testing as editing. In several cases, I test as a consumer and provide text edits.

Case 1: Missing Login/Logout Buttons

Recently, I checked on one educational institution’s website. Where’s the login button? I wondered. I emailed their tech support. Tech Support responded that there’s no login button and provided the login steps. After I click around, I wanted to logout. No logout button or link, and when I closed the browser and reopened, I was still logged in. Again, I contacted Tech Support; they sent me the logout link.

My feedback to the institution? It was difficult to login and logout; please add buttons!

Case 2: Missing Donate Button and Unsecured Website

A non-profit client requested that I click through their site and try some features. We agreed that I would try and donate, to test the automated responses. On the main page, there was no Donate button. Why make a potential donor hunt through the site to give money? When I did find the donation page, I noticed that the website address wasn’t secure (not https). Consumers don’t want to provide PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on an unsecured website.

My suggested edits? Secure the donation page. Add Donate buttons on all pages.

 

Sherri Leah Henkin is a Senior Member of STC. Her STC-related articles have appeared in NEO STC’s newsletter and Intercom. In addition to tech writing and editing, Sherri has published creative non-fiction pieces in several international magazines. Sherri offers content creation and editing services through www.contentclarified.com.

Editing Science Manuscripts with a Humanities Background

by Geoff Hartgeoff-Australia-cropped

I’m often asked whether someone with a humanities background can build a career editing science manuscripts. The answer, as so often in life, is yes…and no. The yes part is easy: English is English in any discipline, and if you’re a skilled editor, you can edit the basic grammar and syntax of English in just about any field without fully understanding the subject matter. The no part is more complex, and a clue to that complexity emerges from answering the inverse of this question: Can an editor with a scientific background edit humanities papers? Continue reading

Clarity for Editing

Justin Baker

When I was a young technical editor, I was confused by all of the technical editing stages within one editing model — not to mention the competing editing models.

Everywhere I turned, there seemed to be a competing name and a competing label for a particular aspect of editing. For example, substantive editing means developmental editing unless you are thinking of a particular editing model.

I was like a movie character in one of those old cliched film montages where the character walks past one blinking neon sign after another, completely perplexed. To this day, I still do not adhere mentally to The Levels of Edit 1 with its nine editing levels. I have sought to develop my own editing model based on my experience as a technical editor. Some theoretical physicists believe that the underlying formula that explains the theory of everything in the universe will turn out to be a simple, elegant formula. Life is indeed complex, but at the mountaintop of knowledge, things must have a simplicity that is understood by all. I believe that to be true of the levels of edit.

If some editors are not clear on the levels of edit that it takes to edit a document, then most managers are certainly not clear on the levels of edit, either. As we all know, communicating our profession’s conceptual models to managers is very difficult. Most managers (excluding technical communication managers) think of writing and editing as a black box activity. They see the document go in; they see the document come out. Most managers are blissfully ignorant of the complexities of our job. Their blissful ignorance may be partly our fault. Perhaps we have not communicated the nature of our activities in the simplest possible way.

This is a usability issue. We as technical communicators are focused on usability more and more, so when the conceptual models in our own profession are not easily understandable, then we need to simplify them. I think it is time to simplify and re-label the editing levels so that they are straightforward and intuitive, at least at the top level. The Levels of Edit espouse no less than nine editing levels, and labels for some of these editing levels are surely not intuitive to either some editors or managers. Let’s simplify the editing model down to three editing levels at the very top.

Knowledge Editing

I propose that the first editing level be titled knowledge editing. Knowledge editing refers to the technical subject matter in a document, both in text form as well as in illustration form. In the editing model I propose, the knowledge editing level would be divided into four sub-levels:

  • knowledge accuracy,
  • knowledge completeness,
  • knowledge logic,
  • knowledge hierarchy.

The knowledge accuracy and knowledge completeness sub-levels would ensure that the subject matter is accurate and complete. The knowledge logic editing sub-level would ensure that the a-b-c logic of the subject matter is sound. The knowledge hierarchy editing sub-level would ensure that the 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1 hierarchy of the subject matter is sensible. Of course, the editing sub-levels in this editing level might be performed at the same time as they might be in the proceeding editing levels.

Language Editing

I propose that the second editing level be titled language editing. Language editing refers to the technical subject matter in a document, both in text form as well as in illustration form. Language editing would focus on the manifestation of the knowledge through words and images. This level of editing would encompass the following editing sub-levels:

  • sentence structure
  • grammar, diction
  • punctuation
  • spelling
  • character mechanics

For visual text, language editing refers to the particular standard visual elements used in any given type of illustration. For example, use case diagrams use particular industry-standard visual elements that must be used in the diagram; for network diagrams, some companies might want to consistently use the same network server icon. The language editing level would ensure that the text language as well as the visual language are standardized.

Layout Editing

I propose that the third editing level be titled layout editing. Layout editing focuses on the following editing sub-levels:

  • standard, large-scale document structures
  • text and illustration spacing
  • large-scale font formatting
  • miscellaneous layout mechanisms such as running headers, page numbers, and hyperlinks

 

Conclusion

In the editing-level conceptual model that I propose, I do not consider it necessary to build in a layer that prioritizes the levels of editing as is dictated in The Levels of Edit or a Council of Biology Editors (CBE) publication2 from several years ago that proposed the reprioritization of the editing levels found in the Levels of Edit. Simplicity is best in this situation. It is enough to give technical editors the basic editing levels and sub-levels and let them decide what takes priority.

I have not covered all the possible nooks and crannies of the editing landscape in this brief column, but it doesn’t matter. Even if I had covered every single aspect of editing, there would be arguments about the arrangement of the editing levels and sub-levels. The point is that the editing conceptual model needs to be simplified at least at the top editing level. I say knowledge editing, language editing, and layout editing. You may say something else. And we can debate on the editing sub-levels that lay beneath. I’m merely making a call for clarity.

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

Endnotes

  1. Van Buren, Robert, and Mary Fran Buehler. The Levels of Edit, 2nd Ed. Pasadena: Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology, 1980.
  2. Nadziejka, David. 1999. Council of Biology Editors Guidelines, Number 4: Levels of Technical Editing. ISBN 0-914349-5-0. Reston, VA: Council of Biology Editors

Reprinted from Capital Letter(external link), the newsletter of the Washington, D.C. chapter of STC, by permission of author and editor.