Editor’s Note: This is the first article in the Newbies’ Corner series, which is intended to give a platform to new, fresh voices, especially from those who are studying the field or just starting out. If you are a student learning about technical editing or just starting out on your technical editing journey, and would like to submit an article, please send an email to editor@stc-techedit.org.
As technical communicators and editors, we know about the importance of user-centered processes. There’s a growing demand for user experience (UX) writers and UX designers, and for building UX into our organization’s (or personal) content strategy from the start.
We also have a foundational commitment to “the rules.” Our work builds on reviewing content and suggesting changes in media, style, grammar, voice, and tone, among other things. We question the accuracy and completeness of a given communication and its content. For example, when editing a set of instructions, we could follow the steps, seeking errors or missing information. As technical editors, we may also try to break those instructions and identify their limits—which provides our authors with insights they might have missed. We also look for consistency, ensuring that, for example, fractional measurements are plural and consistent (think 0.7 inch vs. 0.7 inches, and within the same document .8 inches becomes 0.8 inches). We ask: are all references to other publications, articles, or patent-related prior art accurate?
All of this creates an editorial paradox. On one side, we have our commitment to the rules, the guidelines, and the stylebooks—our work as editors relies on it. Concurrently, our work must also meet the needs of our authors and users. If we completely ignore these groups and adhere only to the rules, we risk building barriers, losing audiences, and damaging trust. How can an author trust or rely upon a cold and mechanical, possibly ambivalent, editor? Conversely, if we ignore the rules completely, we dilute the value of our work, create process delays, and ultimately work counter to our goals. What can editors do? It’s simple: choose user over rulebook.
This is not a new discussion. Michelle Corbin discusses this paradox in a Corrigo article republished in 2019. Corbin notes that technical editing is different from other kinds of editing because of our involvement with ‘what is’ content, not only how it’s presented. Yet, we work in a world that often misunderstands this fact—furthering the rift between user and rulebook. In Corbin’s view, a document’s effectiveness is key, which—when a document is effective—raises the question, “…is it that important to remove every grammatical error from the document?”
When we focus solely on the rules, we remove attention from our authors and audiences. We dismiss them as people. Rules are inert, unyielding, and unresponsive. They are nonreactive. Rules are designed to increase usability and ensure accuracy; however, they are not alive. Rules do not care about us. They do not respond to us or our work the way authors and audiences can.
And while we use many style guides, dictionaries, thesauruses, and other materials to edit content, these inanimate volumes do not respond to our work. So, by adhering strictly to the rules, without regard for the people they affect, we make the rules the end user. Our work shifts to serve only syntactical or grammatical elements, not the people who need our work.
For example, consider punctuation. In The Copyeditor’s Handbook, Amy Einsohn and Marilyn Schwartz note that different authors punctuate differently. Some prefer the visual aesthetic of comma-less sentences. Other authors approach punctuation aurally—preferring to hear ‘beats’ and pauses from commas, em dashes, or periods almost musically. Still others adhere to syntactical methods. Our role as editor isn’t to choose a punctuation style as superior over all others. Instead, it is to understand our authors and their audiences, and guide them with a punctuation style (among other things) that supports both their needs and goals.
We must consider that users are people—an obvious statement for sure. However, we also know that we are rarely our own audiences. They are people with their own pasts, needs, and values. Starting here is an elementary cornerstone of user-centered design. As editors, we can go one step further.
Consider the work of Carol Fisher Saller, formerly of The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) and the voice behind CMOS’s widely loved Q&A. Saller’s The Subversive Copy Editor is an excellent example of the practice of considering our users over the rules. Saller shows us that editing is more a game of compromise than a binary world where writing either “works” or it doesn’t because of its adherence to the rules. We never completely abandon the rules. We embrace our users’ needs, and occasionally bend some rules. For example, our style guides might ask us to write out any number under ten; however, all editors know there are times when numerals can be seen as a better choice. For example: 7-, 8-, and 15-person groups. Or, 9 p.m. instead of nine o’clock p.m. etc.
By placing UX and user needs ahead of the rules, we create several benefits for ourselves and our audiences. Here are a few examples of such benefits:
- We show our capacity for empathy and understanding, which fosters a cycle of improvement.
- We build trust with our authors by welcoming conversations about editorial choices.
- We help guide and educate authors while helping them also trust themselves.
This is a particularly crucial role—even we editors can be tripped up by what might seem obvious. For example, in 2016, the third most-read style question in the CMOS online Q&A archive was about if double periods are ever acceptable (http://cmosshoptalk.com/2016/04/20/believe-it-or-not-our-10-most-read-style-qs/).
These are a few examples of the benefits we enjoy when centering our choices on our users’ goals. Certainly, we would never completely dismiss the rules. Instead, when we find ourselves editing for content, perhaps we can ask some questions earlier in the editing process:
- Can you help clarify for me what you mean in this passage?
- What is the main point our users should take away from this piece?
- What is our audience’s understanding of this content?
- How can we best express this information?
Asking more questions early should already feel like a regular aspect of our role. We embrace editing at a deeper level than most might think. We aren’t only proofreaders or spellcheckers. We may also check content, references, indexes, correlating parts, or permissions in addition to our work with grammar, syntax, diction, and style. If the field of technical communication is rooted in improving the spread of useful information, then the work of technical editors is to simplify and streamline both process and product. We are not only content editors or copy editors. Yes, we are tasked with highly “technical” editing. However, we also have an opportunity to edit methods and processes by placing people before the rules. This not only exceeds coworker or client expectations and satisfies audiences, but also fosters long-term and productive working relationships while making our work more gratifying.
About the Author
Nathan Richardson is currently completing his last year with the University of Maine at Presque Isle where he is an English major, member of the Dean’s List for highest honors, and George M. Park Scholarship recipient. Outside of his education, Nathan is active within the Society for Technical Communication. He is STC Accessibility Community of Interest facilitator and STC New England Chapter treasurer.