Notes from 48th International STC Conference
Chicago, Illinois, May 13-16, 2001

Editing On-Screen: Tools, Techniques, and Tips

David D. Dayton, University of Puerto Rico
Carolyn D. Rude, Texas Tech University

Carolyn D. Rude is Director of Technical Communication at Texas Tech University, a Fellow in STC, and a recipient of STC's J.R. Gould Award for Teaching. David D. Dayton teaches at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.

Session Description: This demonstration explored several on-screen editing options. Presenters highlighted advantages and drawbacks of each, provided guidelines and tips for Microsoft Word, and offered options for Web pages.

• Overview: on-screen editing in technical communication, advantages and tradeoffs, four types of on-screen editing, editing in Microsoft Word (two segments), editing options in FrameMaker, electronic overlay markup tools, summary and conclusion.
• Up through the mid-90s there was significant resistance to editing on screen.
• Now, however, for most it's no longer a question of whether to edit on screen, but how best to do it.
• Still, many editors report that on-screen editing imposes cognitive, perceptual, and communicative disadvantages compared to editing hard copy.
• A recent in-depth study shows editors to be evenly split between hard copy and electronic editing as their primary edit mode. Most who edit others report using both methods.
• The study also showed that very few editors do only that; most are also writers, writers/managers, writers/producers, etc.
• Editors and writer-editors were more likely to use e-editing than other job-role groups.
• Peer-editing writers were much more loyal to hard-copy editing than editors and writer-editors.
• Age, years, of experience, and gender were not significantly associated with primary edit mode or frequency of electronic editing
• Editing others has becomes less of a specialty; today, many technical communicators consider editing others an important job function.
• Technical communciators need to develop the skills to edit efficiently on paper as well as on screen.
• It is best viewed not as an either-or proposition; it is best to develop both skills.
• Advantages of on-screen editing:
   
• Makes it possible for editors and authors to work together efficiently even over distance
• Enables editors to semi-automate tedious tasks
• Can speed the process, adding productivity
• Can increase overall job satisfaction.
• Tradeoffs of e-editing:
   
• Difficulties of reading on-screen text and concerns about missing errors
• Constraints due to H/W and S/W requirements
• Health problems related to computer use (1/5 of respondents said they had experienced such problems)
• Most reviewers strongly prefer hard-copy for edit/review
• Using hard-copy with on-screen editing is common. Reasons include:
   
• Checking elements difficult to edit on-screen, such as complex graphics, tables of numbers, etc.
• Giving long and or comoplex documents an initial read-through
• Proofreading the final pre-publication document
• Checking formatting details
• Catching errors that are missed when proofing on screen
• Marking up hard copy to guide on-screen editing
• Marking up hard copy to show e-copy changes
• However, reasons to edit on-screen are compelling. On-screen editing will increase and eventually become standard procedure. Reasons include:
   
• Ever-accelerating product development cycles
• New network-centric documentation technologies (XML, single-sourcing)
• More telecommuting; also more teams composed of members at various work sites
• New tools to mark up and review HTML and Frame docs
• Nevertheless, paper will still remain an integral part of the editing process for a long time to come.

• For many, markup is the most critical tradeoff It is hard to overestimate the importance and centrality of markup in any online editing tool. It is how the editor works and how the document is changed. Markup is also a key means of collaborating with the author. Many authors are loath to allow invisible editing, for fear the editor will introduce a content error that they fail to catch in review, which they then become responsible for. For this reason, most authors prefer hard-copy edits, because it makes the suggested changes visible for authors, and also possible to override. Hard-copy edits are faster for the editor and "safer" for the author. However, they do impose time-consuming keystroking upon the author to enter the changes. (Suggestion: Have Word Processing personnel do the keystroking, but provide the author with the redline markup.)
• Automated Typographic Markup (ATM). Software automatically tracks/marks changes to document using typographical highlighting. This includes electronic redlining and post-edit document comparison. MS Word offers both methods. FrameMaker has a document comparison option; a third-party redline tool is available (Comment It from Frame Tools).
• Manual Typographic Markup (TPM). Use of manually applied typographic highlighting to mark changes. Includes a wide variety of makeshift markup methods. Easily confused with automatic redline functions.
• Electronic Overlay Markup (EOM). Editors graphically mark changes and type queries on transparent layers over a fixed electronic copy. Similar to whiteboards in computer commujnication applications. Similar tools exist for Web pages. These changes cannot be automatically incorporated by hitting "Accept Changes"; they are just physically superimposed on top of the text and therefore must be keystroked in.
• Electronic Queries. Can be inserted into soft copy via automated annotation tool, manual typographic markup, or electronic overlay annotation. Can be delivered to authors in separate files or e-mail messages.
• Basics of editing in Microsoft Word:
   
• Setting user information to tag tracked edits correctly. Word will put in editor's initials along with a time/date stamp. This is particularly important with multiple reviews/edits.
• Setting markup preferences. There are some options on colors, insertions/deletions, placement of change bars, etc. You can mark formatting, but that tends to clutter the document and impede subsequent review. The number one complaint about change tracking in Word is the difficulty of following the changes. One good option is to provide the next reviewer with two files: one showing the redline, the other incorporating the changes (to make sure no glitches in spacing, etc., have been introduced with the changes).
• Using TRK button for quick on/off. At the bottom of the Word screen are boxes, including the TRK button. Default shortcut key involves two characters and control...or you can create your own macro key shortcut. Right-clicking the TRK button gives you the menu for highlighting options.
• Setting highlight preferences. Varies with the situation and the review requirements.
• Locking down the document. It is possible to force reviewers to only make changes with tracking on, or to give them read-only privileges, with no edit capability (limiting their review options to annotations).
• Reviewing changes. Toolbar leads to an automatic Review option that jumps from change to change for rapid review. However, this operates like a search-and-replace (e.g., spell check), robbing the reviewer of context for the changes. For this reason, many editors/reviewers prefer to scroll manually to pick up all the redline changes.
• Inserting and reviewing comments in Word. Activate the Reviewing Toolbar or set up a shortcut key for inserting comments. For repetitive operations, shortcut keys save a lot of time over the long haul; it is wise to take the time to set them up.
• Complaints about Word's change tracking. Many think Word's change tracking produces a cluttered, hard-to-review document. In some cases, SMEs are not adept at word processing and therefore prefer hard copy.
• For manual typographic markup in Word, there are various makeshift methods. You can create character styles and shortcut keys for INSERT, DELETE, and QUERY styles. Hidden text offers a limited option for conditional text.
• Using Word's document comparison option. To check an edited document returned by the author:
   
• Accept all changes in your file edited with Track Changes: save under a different name.
• Use Tools-Track Changes-Compare Documents and select the returned file to compare.
• Use Reviewing Toolbar to step through the author's changes.
• Drawbacks to Track Changes and Doc Compare:
   
• Track Changes throws off auto-numbering, although this usually resolves itself at the end of the process.
• Using Track Changes across versions of Word may cause minor problems.
• Doc Compare won't compare fields longer than 750 words, such as Table of Contents.
• Moving blocks of text is problematic in both Track Changes and Doc Compare.
• Specialized Document Compare programs:
   
• Lexis-Nexis CompareRite: http://www.lexis-nexis.com
• Workshare Technologies DeltaView: http://www.workshare.net
• For Web pages:
   
• Araxis 2000: http://www.araxis.com
• CSdiff: http://www.abscs.cjb.net
• More tips for editing in Word:
   
• Negotiate which changes need to be tracked.
• Avoid using Track Changes for heavy reorganization, rewriting, and/or reformatting.
• Make changes in a way that will make reading the markup easier.
• For authors new to Track Changes, prepare a set of step-by-step instructions.
• Editing Tips in Framemaker:
   
• Editing outside of Framemaker
   
• Do the heavy editing in Word of another word processor before putting text into Framemaker
• Export the Frame doc to RTF, edit using Track Changes in Word, then return the RTF to Framemaker
• Use Adobe Acrobat to edit with EOM
• Using change bars and comments
   
• Change bars put a vertical line in the margin of each line with a change
• Use comment marker or conditional text for inserting queries
• Using document comparison
   
• Open the new and old versions of the document; make the newer one active
• File > Utilities > Compare Documents
• Select the older document as the one to compare; specify summary and composite document
• Click Options and specify how you want any changes to be displayed
• Document Compare problems
   
• Eliminate formatting overrides before running the Document Compare utility
• Tables, text insets, and other complex elements can give confusing results
• Document Compare takes lots of memory and a long time for long documents
• Using character styles and conditional text
   
• Basic procedure is the same as explained for Word using character styles
• Conditional text can be hidden so the author can see how the formatting will look when the edits are accepted
• These methods are cumbersome at first, due to the need to remove the character styles or condition tags
• Using Comment IT from Frame Tools: a $59 tool that sounds too good to be true, providing multiple markup options (colors, styles, etc.) and an easy mechanism with which to review, accept, and reject proposed changes for up to 15 reviewers.
• Electronic overlay markup for Web pages. Adobe Acrobat 4.0 and 5.0 offer this feature. These programs incorporate Ambia's on-screen PDF annotation and markup tools, which allow highlighting, underlining, strike-through, and circling text; automatically generate a summary of changes by reviewer; and include a Document Compare feature that shows pre- and post-edit versions. Web pages can be converted to PDF format, where all annotation and markup tools can be used to edit them.
• Situations in which to use EOM:
   
• For editing electronically when the author retains control of the source file.
• Managing an edit review process in which you want to retain control of the source file.
• Editing focused on the visual elements of the document: layout, graphics, colors, etc.
• Other overlay markup tools for HTML:
   
• iMarkup: http://www.imarkup.com
• EQuill: http://www.e-quill.com
• Summary and conclusions:
   
• Hard copy is still the most used method of editing.
• On-screen editing has gained ground and will soon rival hard copy for primacy, but not as a single, one-size-fits-all routine.
• Best approach is eclectic: learn the variety of tools and procedures available and adopt/adapt those that best suit the social context and the specific job requirements.