9 Process

Judgement and reasoning

• If a sentence, statement, concept, or idea can be interpreted many different ways or fails to encompass an entire thought, it probably needs to be rewritten by the author.
• Keep an eye out for elements that do not seem to convey information or relate directly to the material. For example, the “Trails” project included a number of images that were more decorative than illustrative. Because “Trails” was text-heavy and the images were generally not competing with other illustrative graphic elements, I didn’t question the inclusion of these images. In contrast, the Neuro projects, while also text-heavy, tend to rely largely on illustrative graphics and I would question the inclusion of decorative images that would compete with the illustrative ones.
• Minimize and clarify. General communicative practices encourage using the least amount of words necessary to communicate an idea. I apply this to graphic elements as well. Reiteration can be a useful tool when teaching, but there is also a point where saying the same thing too many times can lose the interest of the user. I found this to be an issue more in earlier projects than the ones I have worked on more recently.
• Grammar is all over the place. “Rules” around grammar can be largely arbitrary depending on context and I consider the writing style to be a low-priority issue. We just don’t have the manpower and time to devote to an editorial process that would result in more rewriting for the authors. I focus on clarity and allow for variations in writing that don’t compete with understanding. Especially for our authors that are not native English speakers, I would not waste time on sentence structure changes that don’t affect how the ideas are interpreted. For example, an author might write something awkward like “This vowel are only necessary when using letter type A and letter type B in a word.” Obviously, something like “When using letter types A & B together in a word, it is necessary to use this vowel” or something similar would be less awkward, but the idea communicated is understood the same. I would only change “are” to “is” to fix the plurality, but not involve the author in a query to approve the rewrite. This is especially the case where these style choices are widespread throughout the project. I would be more apt to try remediating single- or double-instances of an issue like this if it is outside the style for the rest of the project.

1. Initial Proof
   1. Create PDF export of original submission as it exists for comparison
      1. Explain how this might be used for comparison and how it would be useful
      2. A preliminary PDF would create a hard copy reference of the project in its original form. This would be useful during the final review stages as a comparative tool against the remediated version to catch content that may have been unintentionally removed or modified. Additionally, it would provide a “before and after” comparison that would help illustrate the impacts of our editorial process.
   2. -Identify & Document Issues
      1. In accordance with style guide expectations
         1. In this stage, I’m looking especially for elements of the content that are disruptive to the flow of information. If my eye is being pulled to things like dashes throughout, random bits of bold, images, or irregular spacing, then these are the foremost disruptions to clean up before a more in-depth analysis of the words and how they’re written. This is also the stage where I’m looking for patterns in the way words and visual elements are used. It is easier to keep as much of the author’s conventions as possible as long as they are being consistent throughout. However, you want to keep an eye out for when an author uses the same strategy for different purposes. For example, if they use purple textboxes for activities, they should avoid purple textboxes for other purposes.
   3. -Analyze work holistically for structure and recurring or sequential use of elements
   4. -Identify overlap with accessibility and consult with Chandlee
   5. -Assign student tasks
      1. Add examples of student tasks
      2. Planner – Remove Inappropriate Spaces
      3. Planner – Punctuation
      4. Planner – Quotation Marks Recheck
      5. Planner – Punctuation
2. Review Student Work
   1. -Assign rechecks
      1. Not full read through, recheck of assignments
      2. This is an opportunity to check the consistency of the student work and their choices when remediating. I reassign things where mistakes were left incorrect, or to re-do something that was remediated incorrectly. This is a place where the original PDF would be a handy tool.
   2. -Correspond with authors (if needed)
      1. When to expect author labor vs student or my labor
      2. I involve authors on any change that alters the meaning of a sentence or the order of content.
      3. Students are only assigned tasks that have noticeable, repetitive instances of mistakes.
3. Final Read-Through
   1. -Correspond with authors (rarely)
   2. -Make final edits & save