Would you like proofreading functions?

[Tim Green]

Some users have suggested that they would like to have additional functionality for proofreading, so we decided to create a poll for this. We'd like to know whether proofreading with PDF and comments is sufficient for you (this is already possible) or if you would like to have other options. For example, would you like to print out a text-only version with a broader right margin with space for handwritten comments? Or would you like a PDF with text only and no images? Or would you like even more, with a special proofreading document and a dedicated interactive proofreading viewer with the ability to add comments with user names?

[Aitch]

Even though I am the only one author in our department, it will be nice to have something like a 'viewer' available for anybody who is interested in proofreading.

Anything that is quick and easy to add comments to (without having specific software) is always a winner in my book. (Not all seem to be able to add comments to PDF).

[David Makulec]

Well, I voted for "special" only because its ambiguity left open the possibility something truly helpful might evolve.

Printouts I can handle with current functionality, so that's no help. And I'm not a real fan of existing "with comments" formats, though I'm open to persuasion.

My main problem is getting anyone to review my work in the first place. And that is certainly beyond EC/H&M's ability to address.

[Winsteps]

Tim, how about another option?

"PDF indicates changes from previous version with vertical line in the margin." Then proof-readers and end-users only need to read relevant text.

[Bill Dimech]

Hi,
When I can tee up a proof reader .. We tend to export to MS word and then turn on change tracking before handing over the document to the proof readers. This at least makes it easy for us to find the corrections or recomended changes in the word document using its inbuilt change tracking. As the formatting can vary between word and the final help text this is only useful in correcting the text, not finding formatting issues unless they are glaring ones.

Making the corrections back in the help text is still a bit of a pain, sometimes it can be hard finding the relevant words or paragraphs in the help text to make the corrections.

An ideal solution although I assume way too big a project, would be to allow the help text to publish a proof read document in electronic form that is in the format of the final output. Proof readers can edit, make changes or add comment etc. The editors can then review the changes through the help text editor and have change tracking options similar to work like Find Next Change, accept, or manully update it directly in the editor. Basically once the proof readers complete their proof read, you can jump into the Help and Manual project and reconcile the changes directly.
That would be ideal but I imagine a massive undertaking to impliment But hey, you have to put the ideas out there.

Bill D

[Tim Green]

Thanks for all the feedback and suggestions, keep them coming! Note, however, that a special proofreading format and reader/editor would definitely be a project for the next major version, not for an interim release...

[Bob MacLeod]

I seek a printable (e.g., PDF would be fine since I can print it) because the people I want to read it are not as comfortable playing with text on the computer. Thinking of my co-workers if I want them to do it in a hurry, paper is my best choice. This is why I would like the option to print (PDF/RTF) without the images--without having to conditional text every image.

As for me personally, I think the proofable version is a great idea. We have almost 1000 pages in 4 different manuals, and it would be great to have a way for users to give us feedback on individual topics.

[Andy Micone]

I would like to see integration with grammarly, personally. Right now I convert all my H&M output to rtf format, convert to docx, then upload to grammarly to proof it.

[Tim Green]

Hi Andy,

That would certainly be a better option then including a dedicated grammar checker in Help & Manual, which would be a waste of time and energy (the first thing all writers I know do with any word processor is to turn off the grammar checker completely and never look at it again). Whether or not it's possible will depend on the plugin interface.

[scotcro]

Being an owner of a small software company I know how fun and fulfilling it can be to keep adding those new and improved features. The features that have a high "Neato" factor are the most fun. This often results though in diluting the quality of the product overall. Why am I saying this in this post, well I would like to see EC software concentrate on completing and polishing the product features it currently has before adding others. Emphasis on "completing" there are so many areas that may not necessarily be broken, but small tweaks would make such a big difference in productivity and overall quality. I find too often I am working for Help & Manual rather than Help and Manual working for me.