Ensuring technical accuracy and completeness

Maintenance check
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EA-6B_Prowler_maintenance_check.jpg

For our core documentation, my aims are freshness, accuracy, and completeness.

Concerning accuracy and completeness, I saw this while reading an archive of techwr-l:

<<I proof all my documents twice prior to release, but this is obviously not adequate.>>

For what it’s worth, no human ever gets the job done perfectly the first time. Standard editorial practice is _at least_ two passes through manuscript, ideally separated by at least one day. Most of us strive for an additional pass if we have time and energy.

To achieve accuracy and completeness, a doc review process allows authors and reviewers to work together in parallel on separate doc chunks. The review process helps ensure multiple passes. Part of the process involves tracking the whole effort in a publicly visible dashboard so we can all see how far along we are as a release bakes along toward doneness.

I have convinced as small, captive audience to give it a whirl on a tiny scale for the upcoming update release of OpenDJ.

What process are you using to ensure technical accuracy and completeness?


One thought on “Ensuring technical accuracy and completeness

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s