After I published our last issue, in which I hammered on "paper" editors fairly hard, LeAnne Baird wrote to remind me that there are times when editing on paper may be the best way to go. What are those times? Here are a few for your consideration:
1. When training is at least as important as efficiency. If you're trying to turn a proofreader into a copyeditor, or help a writer produce better copy, editing on paper lets the proofreader or writer see and absorb your changes. Yes, you can track revisions in Microsoft Word. But since a typeset document is eventually created from the edited Word document, there's no need for a proofreader to compare the two--or for a writer to make changes that have already been made.
Also, one of the main reasons for editing on the computer is to eliminate steps in the publishing process. So, if you're editing on the computer, you'll need to systematically teach the skills people learn naturally while proofreading or making corrections. Once source for training materials is EEI Communications (http://www.eeicommunications.com/), which publishes a book called Substance & Style: Instruction and Practice in Copyediting, by Mary Stoughton (http://www.eeicommunications.com/press/ss/).
2. When you're faced with a challenge that makes editing on the computer difficult or impossible. The problem could be anything from impaired vision to attention deficit disorder to carpal tunnel syndrome. Whatever it is, you'll need to find a way to work with it, and that might include editing on paper.
3. When you're doing a massive cut-and-paste job and simply need to see four or five or a dozen pages at once. Microsoft Word does a pretty good job of letting you see more than one document at a time, but unless you have a 36-inch monitor, paper may still be a more effective way to tackle the problem.
See "Doing the Splits" in our May 9, 2000, issue:
http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1700620580
