Is deeper and deeper testing really the answer?
We’ve got a problem in tech.
We require a lot of our editors, more so than is usual in other disciplines.
The editors who work in tech need to be clear and logical thinkers, but also nimble and creative. They often work in several content types, for various audiences. They may be thinking a brand-new project through from the beginning or evaluating one at an early milestone. They often participate in developing the very guidelines that they and the writers will be following. They may also develop templates, models, annotated samples, or other resources. When it comes to the editing itself, they may be called upon to restructure or rewrite, to tweak syntax or diction or tone, or simply to sort out the caps and sweep the commas into place. In short, tech editors are many types of editor in one. Nor are they told which role to play when, but most typically must themselves analyze the writing, judge what is needed, and determine how best to accomplish those tasks (insofar as is possible) in the given timeframe. Then, whatever the level of edit, as there will typically be no one else to do so, they’ll also be proofing their own work.
That’s some spectrum. How does one test for all of this beforehand?
While there are scores of publishing-type editing tests to choose from, these focus on mechanical style, testing the rote minutiae of a particular style guide . . .
____________
See the full piece, published in Corrigo: