The advantages of working with an editor kept burgeoning. First there were the nine tasks of an editor, then the five levels of editing that incorporated these tasks, and finally the five extraordinary tasks that an editor could perform.

So much to consider, organize, implement, and assess. The manager was just beginning to get a handle on all this information when the team leader walked into the office.

“I’ve discovered another way to establish editing levels,” the team leader said.

“There’s more?” came the incredulous query.

“Just a different way of looking at it.” Pause. “Perhaps a better way of looking at it, actually.”

The team leader produced a copy of Levels of Technical Editing (by David E Nadziejka, ELS, published by the Council of Biology Editors: contact me for a copy) to review.

“After a little research, I’ve discovered this small guidebook. It takes a bit of a different tack with the levels of editing.”

“Why do we need another method?” asked the manager. “I haven’t even wrapped my arms around all this editing stuff, and now you want to change it?”

“I think, after I explain all this, you’ll see that this adds another set of choices for us, and doesn’t scuttle what we have already discussed.”

“Okay,” conceded the manager. “Tell me why there is a need for another take on the levels of editing.”

Here’s what the team leader passed on to the manager.

Issues with a system of levels. A levels system has many benefits, although they are essentially based on how fast a document can be edited. The five editing levels enable us to:

• Estimate the tasks that need to be accomplished within a given amount of time or money.
• Demystify what an editor can do for us, enumerating the exact tasks for each editing level.
• Maintain a uniform system for editing our documents.

These are great when we are facing a critical deadline. In those cases, we can choose from one of the five levels of editing we discussed earlier. Understand, however, that except at the highest level of edit, the actual content of a document is not being edited.

For any other reason, such as when the schedule permits or when the writer is inexperienced, we should implement these three levels of editing because they all deal with editing actual content.

Some points about this new levels system. There are a couple of points to make about this levels system:

• First, these levels are for editors working directly with our writers to perform a substantive edit to their documents. This is the majority of the type of editing we need.
• Second, it’s best to choose editors who know about our industry so they are more capable of recognizing misstatements and errors in logic.

Three new levels of editing. The guidebook calls these new levels the Rush Edit, the Standard Edit, and the Revision Edit. And as with the previous five levels, these levels are cumulative in their editorial tasks.

1. Rush Edit. While still subject to considerations of budget and time, the Rush Edit focuses on three areas, in this order of importance: content, policy, and copyediting. The purpose of a Rush Edit is to ensure that the author’s work is accurate. An editor would spend the most time on the key areas of a document—the abstract, executive summary, introduction,  conclusion, figures and tables (and their resultant text), and summary paragraphs—and edit them when they are ambiguous, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incorrect.

The editor then aims at correcting policy issues and copy editing.

2. Standard Edit. The purpose of a Standard Edit is to perform a complete edit of a document. Of course, we must first have the time in our schedule, which we usually do. A Standard Edit focuses on five areas: content, style, language, integrity, and policy. In this level, an editor spends whatever time it takes to completely edit a document. The end result is a cogent document with a clear flow of information, accurate and correct information, precise text and rational thought with a logical flow, grammatically impeccable. In other words, a document that makes the original author proud.

3. Revision Edit. This level is a much more than editing because an editor would assume the work of the writer by crafting and developing the document through several iterations.  This is the best level when a document is drafted by several authors. As required, an editor would evaluate the focus of the document, reorganize it, delete sections while writing others; revise; and rewrite.

The better option. For the team, these three levels integrated all nine editorial tasks as well as the five extraordinary tasks, and presented the better options for producing documents that garner the expected results.

—Rich Maggiani

After their meeting, the manager had a lot to consider. The team leader gave the manager the copy of The Levels of Edit^§ to review. (§ The Levels of Edit, by Robert Van Buren and Mary Fran Buehler, published by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology, Second Edition. See April 2012’s blog post for details.) Much of what the team said was clearly articulated in this booklet.

And to the manager’s delight, much more. The additional information would make life easier as they embarked on a measurable program of incorporating an editor into their process. Already the manager could envision a professional editor making their project studies, resource plans, technical reports, and business proposals easier to read and understand, and thus more readily accepted and adopted.

The section entitled “The Condition of the Manuscript” garnered these insights:

• The effort required for any level of edit directly relates to the condition of a manuscript. Better prepared manuscripts require less effort; poorer ones require more effort.
• The condition of the manuscript directly affects the budget and schedule.
• The level of edit defines the quality of the final document, but not the effort required to attain that quality.

All these insights help predict the time and effort required of an editor, regardless of the level of editing involved. While assessing the actual amount of time creates a bit more work upfront, it clarifies the scheduling and budgeting for a project.

A final section described five extraordinary functions that an editor could perform whenever necessary. This, the manager found enlightening because there had been circumstances in the past when an editor could have helped out in many of these areas.

1. Add missing information. Sometimes team members were inundated and could use an editor to expand on their technical input and to research various points. Once the basic information or outline was provided, an editor could:

• Research and write to expand on foundational information.
• Create figures and tables to summarize and encapsulate data.
• Create examples that provided a story to complicated information.
• Collect information from related publications to give the original authors a perspective on their data and provide a reference point for making decisions.

In other words, thought the manager, take an idea or concept and develop it further.

2. Edit difficult material. An editor can:

• Edit and rewrite text written by someone for whom English is a second language and who is not as familiar with expressions, idioms, and just the simple flow of sentences.
• Edit text translated from a foreign language and turn it into readable English.
• Edit transcribed text. Now there is a novel idea the manager had never considered. Team members could dictate their ideas (for instance, while they traveled), which could be transcribed by a service; then an editor could have at it.
• Take handwritten notes and turn them into cogent text.

3. Handle multiple iterations. There were many instances when a document went through a number of cycles. An editor could keep track of all those changes, and ensure those changes were implemented correctly and in the proper order. This is especially true for summary tables and explanatory figures.

4. Edit technical content. Many projects, especially reports, plans, and studies, involved multiple authors. An editor can:

• Combine the contributions from these many authors, and smooth any varying style issues to create a consistent tone and voice.
• Rewrite and revise to organize the document into a cogent flow.
• Ensure that redundant technical information is eliminated and gaps are filled.
• Verify the accuracy of technical content.
• Identify and correct inconsistencies, such as terminology, names, symbols, and phrasing.

5. Perform unusual services. This function explained a plethora of tasks for an editor to perform.

• Deal directly with more than one author, without having to involve the project manager.
• Handle incremental input and intelligently incorporate and organize it.
• Deal with remote authors, especially those in different time zones.
• Interview authors and subject matter experts to garner information required to complete a project.

The manager could think of one other extraordinary task for an editor: to act as the focal point for the written aspect of a project. When an editor managed all aspects of the document, including scheduling and timelines, others would be free to concentrate on the technical information. Incorporating such extraordinary editorial functions would certainly push the final document toward a more human connection.

—Rich Maggiani

As the manager read the nine tasks of an editor§, the technical team stood by and watched the manger’s body language and facial expressions change as the document was read.

“That’s a lot,” the manager finally looked up and said. “Nine tasks.”

The team looked at each other, encouraging expressions slowly dawning on their faces.

“It is a lot,” they said almost in unison. “That’s what we’ve been saying. An editor can get our writing to count.”

They had made their point clear, and the message was delivered, much to their manager’s credit.

“And there’s more,” they said.

“Tell me.”

Five levels of edit. “To build on these nine tasks, the booklet we told you about combined them in a cumulative manner into five levels of edits.” They listed them:

• Level 5 Edit incorporates the Coordination and Policy editing tasks.

• Level 4 Edit adds the Integrity and Screening editing tasks.

• Level 3 Edit continues this trend, adding the Copy Clarification and Format editing tasks.

• Level 2 Edit contains eight of the editing tasks by adding Mechanical Style and Language.

• Level 1 Edit, the most comprehensive of these five levels, contains all nine editing tasks; it adds the Substantive task.

(§ The Levels of Edit, by Robert Van Buren and Mary Fran Buehler, published by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology, Second Edition. See April 2012’s blog post for details.)

Some problems solved. “Working with these five levels enables us to solve two inherent problems when working with an editor.

“First, we can be explicit about our expectations. You know how we tossed around terms like ‘light edit’ or ’heavy edit’? With these five levels, we can be explicit about our needs. For example, we can instruct an editor to perform a ‘Level 2 Edit’. That way we both know what is expected. Or think about it from the flip side. We can give a manuscript to an editor and ask the editor to tell us what level of editing it needs.

“Second, we can choose the level of edit that time and money allow. If we only have a little amount of time or a tight budget, we can request a Level 4 or Level 5 Edit. More time and money, we ask for a Level 1 or 2 Edit.”

The team paused, as it was clear the manager was listening and considering this new structure. They let the silence linger to give the manager a chance to respond.

“You’re right,” the manager finally said. “This clarifies a lot of ambiguity, creates a discernible structure out of something that I always thought was vague and happenstance.”

“We could have used a Level 1 Edit on our proposal,” the team quickly added. “Because that is another thing we can implement.”

“What do you mean?”

“We can decide ahead of time the level of edit various types of documents need. A Level 5 Edit takes a lot less time than a Level 1 Edit. Knowing this, we can decide the editing level we need and schedule the appropriate amount of time at the beginning of a project instead of having to cram it in at the end. With our proposal, we would have known this and worked with it throughout the project.”

Structure rather than inconsistency. “I see what you are saying,” the manager acknowledged. “That would create even more structure and consistency, less ambiguity; something I can measure.” Pause, then with a wry grin the manager continued. “We like to measure things around here.” They all knowingly smiled at that.

“And,” the manager continued, now on a roll. “That would bring some clarity to what is thought of as amorphous.”

“That’s right. The attitude has been that an editor ‘makes things pretty’, or just ‘fixes grammar’, or ‘polishes the pages’. That needs to stop. Instead we need to start thinking of an editor as our watchdog loyally guarding the documents we produce.”

They were all looking around at each other and nodding their heads.

“You know what the book says about an editor?” asked the team leader.

The manager looked up expectantly.

“The book says, and I’m paraphrasing here, that many authors rely on their editor to transform their mass of rough draft material into polished, publishable documents; that by reviewing such text, an editor improves the communication of scientific, technical, and engineering concepts. Just think about that,” the team leader enthused. “An editor can take the mass of our technical information and make it understandable not only to us, but also to a variety of audiences, from the expert to the novice.”

“How does an editor understand all that technical stuff?” the manager asked.

“Of course they are not experts like us. But through experience, logic, knowledge of writing, and ‘editorial acumen’, they can get our writing to count.”

—Rich Maggiani

They returned dejected, and a bit humbled, filing slowly into their manager’s office. Their manager started.

“What happened?”

“We weren’t invited to present.”

That was surprising. “Why not? You told me we had a great proposal, that we could clearly meet all their needs.”

“We do, and we can.”

“Then… what happened?”

“They rejected our proposal out of hand.”

“Huh? What does that mean?”

“They told us our proposal didn’t read well, that it was disorganized, wasn’t clear—‘fuzzy’ is what they said—that it rambled, was a little redundant, had some typos, and…” the hardest part, “it didn’t follow the rules of their RFP.”

“I don’t get it. I thought you guys had this all down pat, that you were expert.” It was more a statement than a question.

“We are expert in all the technical aspects required in the RFP. But…” The pregnant pause hung in the air. “But, as we’ve said before, it’s one thing to be technical experts, it’s another thing entirely to be able to communicate that expertise clearly, concisely, and conclusively. That we struggle with.”

The feeling of disappointment was almost palpable. Mildly accusatory glances circled around.

“We have a solution though.” Wary eyes. “We’ve said this before.” Wary looks. “We need an editor; it’s not a luxury.”

The team continued. “We’ve done some research (The Levels of Edit, Second Edition; Van Buren and Buehler of the Jet Propulsion Lab–JPL). There are nine tasks an editor can do for us. We’ve summarized them for you.”

Nine editing tasks. 1. Coordination, 2. Policy, 3. Integrity, 4. Screening, 5. Copy clarification, 6. Format, 7. Mechanical style, 8. Language, and 9. Substantive; each one substantively more comprehensive than the previous one.

1. Coordination. A coordination edit involves being the center point for the document, its additions and changes, and planning, monitoring, controlling, and scheduling of the overall job.

2. Policy. A policy edit ensures all the document parts are included and conform to any company policies and requirements (such as those stated in an RFP).

3. Integrity. During an integrity edit, an editor ensures that document parts match: table of contents are accurate, cross references to tables, figures, and the like exist, are accurate, and sequential.

4. Screening. A screening edit ensures fundamental aspects of copy editing are met and acceptable, such as contextual spelling; subject and verb agreement; missing or redundant wording; graph, figure, and table labeling; punctuation; mechanics; proper numbering.

5. Copy clarification. During a copy clarification edit, an editor ensures that everyone’s contribution is complete and addresses the full scope of the intended content, and that the various contributions are presented in a parallel manner.

6. Format. A format edit ensures that the entire document conforms to a consistent look and follows any specified guidelines. It ensures consistent font usage (including correct usage of bold, italics, and other font treatments); correct typography of line spacing, leading, indents, lists, bullets, and numbers; correct application of the various head levels; correct placement and juxtaposition of text and graphics; consistent page elements; and intelligent page breaks.

7. Mechanical style. An editor ensures that document complies with all aspects of a specific style. Absent a style guide, the editor ensures conformity and consistency for textual and graphical elements. Examples include abbreviations (kilowatt hour versus kWh), spelling (catalog versus catalogue), capitalization of words in headings (initial caps versus sentence caps), symbols, compound words (non-profit or nonprofit), acronyms, and nomenclature.

8. Language. The language edit entails an in-depth review of the expression of ideas to tighten the text for clarity and readability. An editor would refine a document based on specific and identifiable reasons in such areas as spelling, grammar and syntax, word usage, fluency of transitions, parallelism of words and phrases, conciseness, correct and consistent terminology, proper use of the narrative form, gaps in logic, inconclusive arguments, and many other language-based potential stumbling blocks.

9. Substantive. A substantive edit involves the most comprehensive work by an editor in that it deals with the meaningful content of a document. An editor ensures that the document accurately reflects the topic, develops that topic fully, isn’t repetitive or redundant, and doesn’t include any unnecessary information. A substantive edit reviews and offers rewrites and revisions to organization, phrasing, coherence, interplay and content of text and graphics, and scope so that it fulfills the document’s overall intent.

The levels of edits. An editor combines these tasks in various levels of edits, all directed toward the ultimate humanity of a document for the reader.

—Rich Maggiani

“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.”

One of the most famous and memorable lines in all of movie history wasn’t written by the script writers—it was created on the spot by Humphrey Bogart while filming one of the many lightening-rod scenes in Casablanca. Not only is Casablanca considered the best movie of all time by most film critics, but its script is also considered the best of all time by the Script Writers Guild. Even with those sterling achievements, Bogart’s ‘editing’ of that crucial line improved the dialogue and the film. As a result, the line endures 70 years after Bogart uttered it.

This is the value that an editor enmeshed with the writers can bring to improve written text.

Self-editing as a choice. More than likely, neither the documents you write, nor the ones I write, will carry the same longevity of Casablanca’s script. Nonetheless, your writing is important. And yet, many of us—myself included—often self-edit and eschew the brilliance that an editor can bring to our writing.

Make no mistake, self-editing often is a useful way to improve your writing. Letting text you’ve labored over to rest for a few days enables you to see that text from a new and expanded angle when you return to it. There’s a renewed clarity after your subconscious has stewed, which allows you to improve and build upon your initial text. In general, though, you are still bringing the same mind-set to your text, using the same base of information and perspective that you brought at the beginning.

An editor’s job. An editor, on the other hand, doesn’t need a few days to stew on your text. An editor sees your text for the first time, with its inherent novelty and sense of discovery. As such, an editor brings a different perspective and mind-set to your work, a certain clarity. But, and I must emphasize this, your editor must work within your paradigm while looking at your text from that outside perspective. You, as the writer, maintain final say over your text.

Your editor’s job is to improve your writing while fixing contextual errors, helping you communicate more clearly with your audience, helping you attain your goals—all while maintaining your original voice and style.

The value of an editor. An editor acts as the ‘first reader’ of your document, advocating for clear language, for you the writer, and for your readers:

Get to the point. The first question an editor wants an answer to is simply this: what’s the point? An editor makes sure your point is well stated, consistent throughout, and that all your text supports that point. Everything else is superfluous, and thus—gone.

Bring clarity to your message so that your audience readily understands what you are trying to say. For example, a writer can be too familiar with a topic and speak over the heads of their readers. An editor can come from that reader’s perspective, ask and answer the kinds of questions your readers might have, and alter your text in ways to make it more easily understood.

Tighten your text to improve its readability and its comprehension. Stephen King, the prolific mystery writer, states in his enlightening book, On Writing, that he reduces the size of his final draft by at least ten percent. He admits that he used to be tempted to add more to his final draft, but he quickly learned that this was counterproductive. No matter how difficult it is to cut what he considers to be some of his more prosaic phrases, he mercilessly cuts them because he knows his writing is not for him—it’s for his readers.

Sharpen your message so that your reader fully understands what you want them to do as a result of reading your text, and then responds as you intended. When writing a report, study, or plan, your editor can help ensure the document is on topic and its conclusion and recommendations will be readily accepted and adhered to. When writing a proposal, an editor can help ensure your prospect will accept your pitch and buy.

All of this ensures that your writing is reader-focused. Too many professionals write from their own perspective. This is only natural, since your perspective is what you know. For your writing to be most effective, however, it must be from the reader’s perspective: what do they need to know, how do they need to read it to get it, how is this information important to them (why should they keep reading), and how should they respond or act (the “what’s in it for me” perspective). An editor, with an outside perspective, is often better poised to attain this reader-centered perspective.

Your collaborator. Good editors do not consider themselves adjunct to the writing process nor to the writer. Instead, a good editor acts as your collaborator, working closely with you to instill clarity and cohesion in your work.

Ultimately, your editor works toward integrating humanity into your writing.

—Rich Maggiani

“Where are we going?”

My teenage son and I sat in the car in our driveway. He was behind the wheel, beginning another training session as he learns to drive. No engine started yet, when he posed that question. I just looked at him quizzically.

“You’re kidding, right?”

“No”, he said. “I don’t know where we’re going.”

I sat in silence for a bit, absorbing that. Okay, I thought, let’s start somewhere else.

“What are we trying to do?” I tried.

“Buy sneakers for me.” That’s good, at least he knew that.

“And where might we get those?”

“I don’t know.” The standard teenage response. Then he thought for a second. “How about the outlet mall? There’s a couple of stores there.”

“Let’s go then”, I said.

He started the car, and rolled a short distance, then stopped. He just sat there staring straight ahead. He looked deep in thought, pondering. I looked at him again, wondering.

He slowly turned to look at me, and with a look of chagrin said, “How do I get there?”

I laughingly smiled.

“You don’t know how to get there?” I asked with some incredulity.

“No”, he stated matter-of-factly. “How would I know that? I’m used to just sitting there and going along for the ride.”

Let’s pause the story there, and shift gears from driving to presentations.

How many presentations have you attended where it’s clear that the presenter doesn’t know where they are going? That the objective wasn’t clear, or even evident? Yes, there was a title that gave some idea of the topic, but the presenter just meandered along presenting various concepts and then just ended without any future direction or point. Been there? I have.

Whenever you give a presentation, you must know where you are going, where you are taking your audience. In other words: your objective. So here’s a quick primer on how to decide on your objective.

First, what is an objective? Your objective is what you want to attain as a result of your presentation. All presentations must have an objective, which essentially informs your audience why they are there, what they can expect, and how much they need to tune in.

An objective must state what you want to attain during your presentation, but it must also demonstrate benefits to your audience. To meet your objective, state explicitly what you want your audience to do.

Three perspectives. You can determine the objective of your presentation in one of three ways: from your perspective; from your audience’s perspective; or from a combination of both.

To develop an objective from your perspective, answer these four questions:

• Why are you presenting? List the reasons that you are giving this presentation to this audience.
• What are you presenting? Briefly outline the main points or content of your presentation. Identify benefits that meet your audience’s explicit needs.
• What do you want your audience to do? Put another way, what is your desired result? Determine what you want your audience to do, what
  action would you like them to take. In your closing, state this call to action and motivate them to act.
• Are you going to inform, instruct, or persuade your audience to act? Generally, you would use a combination of all three of these. Identify, at a high level, what you are informing, how you are instructing, and how you are persuading.

To determine your objective from your audience’s perspective, look at your presentation with your audience’s eyes and mind. Then answer these four questions:

• What is this about?
• Why should I listen?
• What am I asked to do, and why?
• What’s in it for me?

Communicate your objective to your audience. Communicate your objective using three basic methods: informing, instructing, and persuading. Since most presentations include all three:

Outline how you are going to inform them about the information you are presenting, your two to four points.

Instruct them on what you want them to do, to act on your call to action.

Persuade them to act on your call to action within a certain timeframe.

Now, back to our story. Another driving lesson a few weeks later: my son started the car and just sat there staring straight ahead. I waited patiently a bit, then looked at him.

“What’s the hold-up?” I asked.

Pause.

“Well,” he began. “I know where I’m going.” He turned and looked at me. Then continued, “I’m just trying to figure out the best way to get there.”

At that, I could only smile.

—Rich Maggiani

Anyone who has watched a teenager take driver’s ed can empathize—even if that teen isn’t your own. The angst, the “omg, not my car!”. That’s one of the beauties of driver’s ed: the teen learns on someone else’s car. As is my teen. Yesterday, when he came home from school, I was pleased that was the case.

“How was school?” I asked.

“Good.” (Don’t you just love those informative one-word answers?)

“How was driver’s ed?” I persisted.

Pause. Then finally, “It was okay.”

The story. Now, as any parent worth their salt knows, when there is a pause, there is trouble.

“What happened?” I asked matter-of-factly, cutting right to the core.

My son just looked at me with wary eyes. I could see that he was measuring his words in his mind, struggling to decide just what to say.

“The car broke down.” He ventured in a slightly hesitating voice.

Now I knew immediately that this was just the title of the story, that there was much more to hear. The question remained though: could I coax that story out of him? Worth a try. I had a feeling this was going to be good.

“The car broke down.” I reiterated.

He looked askance at me. “Yeah.”

“That’s it?”

“Well, not exactly.” He said, his voice trailing off a bit. “What is there to eat?”

Nice try, but diversion will not work.

“Let’s keep to one topic at a time,” I said. “Tell me about the car breaking down.”

“Well,” he intoned in that well-practiced, exasperated, annoyed voice that teenagers perfect early in their ten-year journey toward their twenties. “What do you want to know?”

I know that tone. It might have worked a few years ago in putting me off the chase for the truth, but I was long over that. So I forged on.

“What do you mean, ‘the car broke down?’”

He pursed his lips. “The car stopped running…” he began, paused a couple of seconds, then continued. “After it kinda got into a little accident.”

Whoa. I didn’t expect that. I was a little unnerved. He was in a car with inexperienced drivers, after all. Perhaps I should worry more.

“What do you mean, ‘kinda?’”

Again, the hesitation.

“Torin. Are you all right?”

“Yeah, yeah. I’m fine. And so is everyone else.” He stated flatly.

“Then what do you mean by ‘kinda got into an accident?’”

He took in a deep breath. Then it all came out rather quickly.

“The car went over a curb at a corner, kinda hit a lamp post a little bit, scraped a lot on the bottom, then bounced back into the road.” Pause. “Then the engine died.” Another pause. “Just like that.”

I was speechless. And stunned. I tried to envision what had happened, then thought of the students and the instructor, and the driver. Then it hit me.

I looked at him. In my most understanding voice, asked, “Who was driving?”

Right away, I knew I had hit on a sensitive spot. He gazed at me with baleful, slightly watered eyes.

“Me.”

I felt all the air go out of me. I just looked around helplessly. Finally, I sat down on the counter stool. I started to pull myself together.

“Then what happened?”

“You know,” he said, emboldened a bit now that the hard part was over. “Driver’s ed teachers don’t know diddly about cars. I mean, after I couldn’t restart the car, I popped the hood. He got out of the car, looked under the hood, and just stared at the engine like it was alien. He yanked a couple of wires, but clearly, he didn’t know a thing about it. Finally, he took out his cell phone, called his office, and next thing you know, a wrecker showed up. The mechanic got the car running in about two seconds. Ridiculous.”

“So, everyone is all right?”

“Yes.” That exasperated voice again.

“And the car is all right?”

“Hmmm. Not too sure about that.”

“And the driver’s ed teacher?”

The enlightenment. “You know, he’s a good driving teacher, but he knows nothin about cars. He can drive them, but doesn’t know how they work. The mechanic, now he knows how cars work, but I’m sure he can’t teach a bunch of high school kids how to drive one. Don’t you think that’s ironic?

“Yes, I see that.” I said. Because I really did see it. We’ve all said that phrase: “Yes, I see that.” Immediately after someone has explained something to us, and we understand. We see it, even though the explanation was verbal. Seems a little out of context, but, actually, it is not. We understand because we can visualize it, “see” it in our mind’s eye. Stories do that—they enable you to visualize. As such, they are a great way to communicate information. Makes me wonder about how poorly all those bullet-point slide presentations communicate when stories are far more effective.

—Rich Maggiani

This past June, I was attending my son’s lacrosse tournament. We wanted a down-to-earth place to eat breakfast. The locals recommended a nearby diner. Now you know what a diner looks like: silver façade, booths with plastic seats, counter and stools, coffee machines and blenders and that little window into the kitchen, slightly cramped. You can picture it, right? Sounded perfect, so we went.

We walked in and looked around. Lots of people, but no waitresses. After a few moments, the swinging doors from the kitchen popped open. Out walked an elegantly dressed man, tux and bow tie, replete with cummerbund and gleaming black shoes. He approached, bowed, and said in a proper tone, “Good morning gentlemen. Have you a reservation?” I raised my eyebrows. “Apparently not,” he intoned flatly. “Fortunately,” he said in a brighter tone, “we’ve just had a cancellation. Please, follow me.” Turning crisply, he walked toward an empty booth. After we sat, he pompously handed us each a stylish menu. Then addressed me formally: “Could I interest you in our reserve wine list? A crisp white would prove a fanciful accouterment for this lovely Sunday morn.”

Confused? Well, if this had been reality, we would have been too. When you walk into a diner, you expect things a certain way. But not this way. To put it another way, this diner’s look did not match its content.

A more pertinent perspective. A long, long time ago (in a galaxy far away), I was approached by a software company to work on their documentation. The docs were basic reference and how-to manuals, describing their menu and explaining their function. They were written by an engineer—who also had a penchant toward inserting references to popular cultural philosophies and weaving their ideologies into the text. Interesting since this ersatz writer-engineer took pains to make the context of these fairy tales relevant; most ended up mild rants.

Management at the company felt that customers were not using the guides because they were out of date, needing and update to match the current software version. Okay, I said, let me look at them.

Let’s say that the guides were, hmmm, typographically and design challenged. I was presented with a relatively tall stack, about two dozen guides. Three-hole punched. Courier 12 point headings and text. All single spaced. All grey.

“What about a redesign too?” I gently suggested. “Perhaps part of the problem,” I continued, “is your customers can’t find anything in the guides, so they don’t use them.”

They thought about that a moment, then, to their credit, they accepted. What would it cost? How long would it take? Because they were releasing another version of the software soon, they wanted the guides to match. The entire redesign and writing took a year, but we completed them all. And they turned out great.

Perception is paramount. As with the look and feel of a diner, the design of your documents—be they technical, promotional, training, web, reports, proposals, essentially all communication materials—directly affects how they are perceived and received. And used.

Okay, so these are egregious examples. Here’s the point: To be effective, your documents—instructional, promotional, and technical, as well as your web pages, request-for-proposal responses, reports, customer correspondence, essentially all written communication—must meet the demands of document design.

Document design brings together text, graphics, layout, and typography to inform, instruct, and persuade. In our work for the software company, we also incorporated elements that identified the company and helped with product recognition. In other words: branding. We endeavored to be subtle, not overwhelming, but apparent.

Engage your audience. Superior document design compels your audience to engage in your communication.

The effective design of written communication, whether practical or promotional, takes a discriminating eye and intelligent, deliberate design. Document design’s goal is to successfully present information without getting in the way. In other words, design itself, by its very nature, must be all but invisible.

Effective document design requires more than type selection and spacing and color and imagery. It requires a thorough understanding of your audience and their needs: how they will perceive the communication, process its content, assimilate it, and ultimately use it. The fundamental purpose of document design is not to simply “look pretty”, win awards, call attention to itself, nor showcase the designer’s skills, but rather to meet your needs. It must enable people to learn, use technology, make decisions, and ultimately, get their jobs done.

Put another way: a reader’s needs must ultimately drive document design. And when they do, the resulting design moves you closer toward humanity in communication.

—Rich Maggiani

Seventy-seven million dollars ($77 million)! That is the amount of money SAS AB is seeking in compensation from Bombardier, the Canadian-based aircraft maker, for omissions in Bombardier’s technical maintenance manual for their Q-400 turboprop plane.

Two of SAS AB’s Q-400 planes were involved in emergency crash landings in Denmark and Lithuania, both involving malfunctions in the plane’s landing gear. (No one was seriously injured in the accidents.) As a result, SAS AB grounded their entire fleet.

SAS spokesman Hans Ollongren said, “The incidents were caused by flaws in components not included in the maintenance manual. This is why we feel the responsibility lies with Bombardier.” Ollongren said that SAS has lost about $62 million since the grounding of their fleet of Q-400s. “There are other costs involved, too, related to credibility and our flight safety record,” he continued. SAS wasn’t the only company affected; about 60 of the 160 turboprops in use by airlines worldwide were grounded.

SAS wants to resolve this matter privately between the two companies. Failing that, SAS has every right and intention of litigating against Bombardier. Can they litigate? For flaws in a maintenance manual? In the European Union (EU), in Canada, in some U.S. states, and increasingly around the world, SAS has tort law fully on their side.

Tort law creates liability issues for poor documentation. In 1998, the EU drew up legislation that recognizes technical documentation as part of a product. This is landmark legislation. Now, the documentation and product are inexorably tied together for liability purposes by this tort law. Corporations are legally responsible for customers not knowing how to use their products and for using them incorrectly.

This legislation raises the bar for the quality of technical documents and related technical materials, and for the technical communicators who create them. But are technical communicators creating these documents, or are companies using other, less qualified, staff?

Many members of the European Union have adopted this tort legislation; Canada has written similar legislation consistent with the intentions of the EU. In the United States, the Unified Commercial Information Transaction Act of 2002 includes language modeled after the Canadian and EU legislation. While only a few states have since adopted this legislation, more are sure to follow, if only to keep up with the evolving tort law and to compete effectively around the world.

Not an isolated incident. “That’s a blank check, isn’t it?” observed Bob Hunter, director of the insurance program at the Consumer Federation of America. Hunter was referring to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) directive that allowed insurance companies to over bill the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) while shortchanging claimants for Hurricane Katrina damage.

In the directive, NFIP’s director David Maurstad wrote: “FEMA will not seek reimbursement from the company when a subsequent review identifies overpayments resulting from the company’s proper use of FEMA depth data and a reasonable method of developing square foot value in concluding claims.” (Italics ours.) Not if, but when. This sentence states that insurance companies do not have to repay over-billed amounts when FEMA discovers them. Changing when to if dramatically alters the sentence’s meaning: if over-billings are discovered, insurance companies must repay them. So much for a simple word.

Cost of doing business? Many companies look at their documentation department as a cost of doing business rather than a source of competitive advantage and a profit center. Technical documentation is often subject to cuts when finances get tight. This leaves the documentation task to others, such as software programmers, product engineers, and their managers—people who are not adequately equipped to create clearly written and usable documents for an oftentimes unsophisticated audience using increasingly complicated products. (Think telephone here: a once simple device is now a feature-laden and complicated communication tool.)

The need for technical communicators becomes essential, and indispensable. Technical communicators deliver unparalleled benefits to a company through their communication expertise, education, experience, and interpersonal skills. Technical communicators understand their audience and create accurate, clear, comprehensive, accessible, honest, correct, concise, and imminently usable documentation in many different forms to address the specific needs of that audience.

With the emerging playing field of increased liability, companies cannot afford—literally—to undervalue their technical documentation and related technical communication.

—Rich Maggiani

I received a Kindle for Christmas — a gift from my oldest son. He thoughtfully bought me the 3G version, and took the time to explain why this more robust version would be more versatile for me.

It’s a handy gadget, especially when I travel. It’s nice too. I’m slowly getting used to using it. Still, it is a big change from reading a book.

Just like our cell phones, the Kindle (and any other e-reader) has taken a common task and, in some respects, made it much more difficult. To be sure, its features are far more robust than that of a book. Still, there is a learning curve. To begin, I had to sift through a rather extensive user guide just to learn how to use it. There is a basic skill set and an aptitude I had to gain before I could use it for its intended purpose: reading.

I find browsing for books online with brief summaries and small avatars a bit constraining, versus flipping through a book’s pages and easily seeing other books on the same topic at a bookstore. There’s a tactile part that is completely missing. But oh, is it convenient. I don’t have to travel to a bookstore, I can locate more books, no out-of-stocks, and get them immediately. (No café for coffee drinks though. Oh well.)

And as I add books, the Kindle doesn’t get any bigger, unlike a growing pile of books. Makes me wonder what the future home library will look like. What can get bigger, and quickly too, is your credit card bill. It is so easy (too easy?) to purchase a new book. There’s a good and bad to that, obviously. What can also get bigger is the size of the text. Can’t read the small text? Then just set it larger —no need for those large print editions.

On the other hand, a book, I can just pick up and read. A Kindle, I can also just pick up and read—so long as I’ve remembered to charge the battery, or be tethered to an outlet providing, of course, that I’ve remembered the charging plug. But I do like the author drawings when I put the Kindle to sleep.

And I like its size. I bought an inexpensive cover for it with a relatively unobtrusive magnetic latch. Inside are a couple of pockets, so it’s certainly handy. Fits snugly inside my outer jacket pocket: nice portability, much easier than carrying some tome. I miss the graphics of a book cover though. A Kindle tends to render a book’s contents amorphous.

Am I being a bit of a curmudgeon? Of course. It’s a huge change from what I am used to. I like the tactile sense of a cradling a book in my hands, the turning of its pages, the ability to review the entire book by flipping through its pages, to get an immediate sense of how much I’ve already read and how much is left. And for me, a writer, holding a book gives me a sense of its sweat equity, a reverence for that effort. I don’t really get that feeling with my Kindle, even though logically the effort still lies in there somewhere.

So I won’t be giving up my books any time soon. I’ve developed a dividing line of sorts: fiction on my Kindle and nonfiction (which I like to mark up with notes and highlights) in print. Nonetheless, there is a place in my life for my Kindle, and I happily use it to read. And it feels especially good to recall that I have this e-reader because of my thoughtful son.

And it’s that type of act, my friends, that moves us toward humanity in this particular communication.

—Rich Maggiani