This means the person proofing is probably looking at more than just the word and layout, even if they're trying not to. It's hard to break the writer/editor mindset and what should be a proof pass becomes a proof and 'edit lite' pass instead. But if this means additional errors, problems or inconsistencies are uncovered, this is probably a good thing.
But where to draw the line? What type of errors have to be caught, and what can you let slide?
This really depends on the demands and culture of your organization. Some companies aim to deliver the best possible version as error-free as humanly possible, and at the other end of the scale there are organizations that insist no changes can be made after proof copy has been signed off, period. Corrections and changes have to wait for a subsequent (if any) release.
Chances are your organization falls somewhere between these extremes. Changes, fixes and corrections should be made if at all possible, but if they impact deliverables they may have to wait.
'Must fix' items include:
- Procedural errors (select Y when you really have to select N)
- Procedures out of sequence or absent, and
- Errors of fact (the boiling point of water is not 100 degrees F, a credit union is not a bank, the Great War did not end in 1945, and a censor is not a sensor)
'Should fix' items include:
- Faulty number sequencing (1, 2, 3, 5, 4 ...),
- Mismatched titles and contents entries,
- Improper graphics/inserts placement
- Punctuation that affects meaning
- Misaligned margins or indents
- Punctuation that doesn't affect meaning
- Color, typeface and font irregularities
- Inconsistent references to the same process (is it 'Press Enter', 'hit the enter key' or 'click Enter'?)
No comments:
Post a Comment