| ??? 01/12/07 12:49 Read: times |
#130717 - The trouble with proofreaders... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Christoph Franck said:
Right now, I'm reviewing some datasheets of parts that might be used in future projects, and I am just appalled at how little proofreading was done. I think the trouble with much technical "proofreading" is that it's done by people who already know the product - so they won't spot where it's unclear, because they understand it already! The most obvious case of this is the use of terminology, abreviations, etc, that are not explained. ... errors in table references (they say "See table X", when the information is actually in table Y and table X contains completely and obviously unrelated information). There really is no excuse at all for that in this day and age! Cross-references should be automatically generated! The trouble then is that if they got such obvious stuff wrong, how can you trust anything else they write...?! It contains timing diagrams that, to my understanding, violate constraints that are later explained several times in quite some detail - "Do not clock out data for for X ns before and after event Y", yet in the timing diagram, event Y happens somewhere smack dab in the middle of the data transfer. Another example of the "proofreading by expert" - as above? Because the "proofreader" already knows the device, he reads what he knows, rather than what the text actually says. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Lousy documentation ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sometimes 'incomplete' is the best | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| name names! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hints :) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The trouble with proofreaders... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Speculations. | 01/01/70 00:00 |