For a graduate technical editing class, I read Corbin et al.’s Defining a Quality System: Nine Characteristics of Quality and the Editing for Quality Process to learn more about the importance of structural editing and its distinction from various editorial services (e.g. copyediting). The article helped me understand the concept of successful documentation is presented to explore the psychology behind a customer using or re-purchasing a quality product. IBM developed an information quality system that focuses on three main takeaways:
- Establishing a definition quality that aligns with the nine quality characteristics
- Determining the metrics through the Editing for Quality (EFQ) process
- Determining how to use those measurements through using results and goal-setting
What surprised me about Corbin et al.’s article was how the EFQ process is able to self-check for its own quality assurance. The agreement score is established based on a EFQ editor finishing an edit, which is then reviewed by two different editors. Before discussing the edit, the three ratings are inputted into a calculation tool that computes an agreement score to identify how the editor’s markings/ratings align between one another. In the article, the threshold agreement score was identified as 85%, and if the score is below the threshold, the EFQ editor is to source feedback from confirming editors and revise the EFQ report before moving to a second review (Corbin et al. 4). There was a segment over how the original intent of the confirmation process was to “…ensure objectivity in an otherwise subjective evaluation process, [but] the confirmation process has proven beneficial far beyond this scope” to uplift editors who are able to develop their skills through the process by re-establishing consistency and guidelines for company workers (Corbin et al. 4).
Outside of readings, I have experimented with editing tools through completing a tool tutorial that is supplemental for my technical editing course. In the tutorials I have recently completed, I tackled track changes in Microsoft Word, comparing edited files against original files, and commenting on documents. I have began exploring AI tools to integrate into my editing process. To support this, I have been using the AI tool Draftsmith to learn more about its Editing Helper, word count trimmer, the tool’s interface, and readability tuning for paragraphs in a document. Draftsmith was a little challenging at first for me to understand — however, I do not believe this is the fault of the tool. I did not hold any knowledge about technical editing prior to starting the course, which I feel has given me imposter syndrome on a whole other scale. In spite of not feeling as qualified to conquer these tutorials, I was still ultimately successful in its completion.
Learning more about these skills will help me as I advance through my degree and eventually step into the technical communication field. I especially enjoyed the readability tuning exercise and feel that this tutorial will help support my career goals greatly thanks to its emphasis on adjusting content based on a strategy or target audience. I would love to go into communications work or be a specialist for a company someday, and being able to appeal/adapt to different audiences (e.g. through memos) is key to move a piece of information from one person to another.
