View Single Post
Old 07-04-2012, 11:24 PM   #31
charlesatan
Addict
charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charlesatan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
charlesatan's Avatar
 
Posts: 230
Karma: 3799024
Join Date: May 2012
Device: iPad
Re: editing.

I just want to comment that regarding editing, some people work better with paper (i.e. they can see it better), while others using a screen. I've seen some authors make corrections on printed proofs, while others on PDFs (since it can be annotated by multiple users, etc.).

The "extra" step of editing (i.e. might introduce errors) is moot. I mean yes, there is a chance that a correction might be missed and not inputted (and in fact, it's been my experience working in a magazine that this has happened). But when editing, the editor isn't making those changes directly on the file anyway. It's usually the graphic artist, who's familiar with the program (InDesign or Quark).

Depending on the editing stage of the manuscript, the file might not be in Word, but an InDesign/Quark Express file exported to PDF.
charlesatan is offline   Reply With Quote