skip to main content
10.1145/3472714.3473619acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Updating Technical Editing Models for Accessibility and Advocacy

Published:12 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The authors present preliminary findings from a survey of editing instructors in order to better understand how editing pedagogies can and do promote social justice.  The authors argue for integrating a social justice approach in technical editing beyond style choices by considering how editing models may be revised. A social justice perspective in technical editing includes the often overlapping areas of advocacy, intervention, and accessibility. Editorial frameworks must effectively incorporate these concerns in nuanced ways.

References

  1. Suzan Flanagan and Michael J. Albers, Eds., Editing in the Modern Classroom. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Melinda L. Kreth and Elizabeth Bowen, “A descriptive survey of technical editors,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 238-255, May 2017, doi: 10.1109/TPC.2017.2702039.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Rebecca Walton, Kristen R. Moore, & Natasha N. Jones, Technical Communication After the Social Justice Turn: Building Coalitions for Action. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Natasha N. Jones and Miriam F. Williams, “The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain-language analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 412-429, December 2017, doi: 10.1109/TPC.2017.2762964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. “Black and White: A matter of capitalization.” CMOS Shop Talk [Blog]. Chicago Manual of Style, June 22, 2020. http://cmosshoptalk.com/2020/06/22/black-and-white-a-matter-of-capitalization/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerry Berendzen, ACES Keynote Speaker Anne Curzan Looks at Language Rules and Asks ‘Why,’ American Copy Editors Society, Jan. 4, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://aceseditors.org/news/2017/aces-keynote-speaker-anne-curzan-looks-at-language-rules-and-asks-whyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Emmy J. Favilla, A World Without ‘Whom’: The Essential Guide to Language in the BuzzFeed Age. New York, NY, USA: Bloomsbury, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Zsuzsanna B. Palmer, Sushil K. Oswal, and Sherena Huntsman, “Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access,” in SIGDOC '19: The 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication Proceedings, October 2019, https://doi.org/10.1145/3328020.3353920.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sherena Huntsman, Jared S. Colton, and Christopher Phillips, “Cultivating virtuous course designers: Using technical communication to reimagine accessibility in higher education,” Communication Design Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 12-23, December 2018, https://doi.org/10.1145/3309589.3309591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Natasha N. Jones, “The technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication,” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 342-361, 2016, doi: 10.1177/0047281616639472. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Sushil K. Oswal, “Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access: Steps toward making UX inclusive of users with disabilities,” in SIGDOC ‘19: Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, pp. 1-8, October 2019, https://doi.org/10.1145/3328020.3353957.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Ella R. Browning and Lauren E. Cagle, “Teaching a ‘Critical Accessibility Case Study’: Developing disability studies curricula for the technical communication classroom,” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 440-463, May 2016, doi: 10.1177/0047281616646750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Laura Gonzales, “Designing for intersectional, interdependent accessibility: A case study of multilingual technical content creation,” Communication Design Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 34-45, December 2018, https://doi.org/10.1145/3309589.3309593.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlos Evia and Ashley Patriarca, “Beyond compliance: Participatory translation of safety communication for Latino construction workers,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 340-367, April 2012, https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912439697.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Mary F. Buehler, “Controlled flexibility in technical editing: The levels-of-edit concept at JPL,” Technical Communication, vol. 24, pp. 1-4, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mary F. Buehler, “Situational editing: A rhetorical approach for the technical editor,” Technical Communication, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 18-22, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mary F. Buehler, “Defining terms in technical editing: The levels of edit as a model,” Technical Communication, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 10-15, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Robert VanBuren and Mary F. Buehler, The Levels of Edit in JPL Publications, vol. 80, 2nd ed. Pasadena, CA, USA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Candace Soderston, “The usability edit: A new level,” Technical Communication, vol. 32, pp. 16-18, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lisa Melonçon, “A field-wide view of undergraduate and graduate editing courses in technical and professional communication programs,” in Editing in the Modern Classroom. Suzan Flanagan and Michael J. Albers, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2019, ch. 9, pp. 171-191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Lisa Melonçon and Joanna Schreiber, “Advocating for sustainability: A report on and critique of the undergraduate capstone course,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 322-335, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGDOC '21: Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
    October 2021
    402 pages
    ISBN:9781450386289
    DOI:10.1145/3472714

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 12 October 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format