When you download the file, you will see it contains a date of the form
YYYYMMDD. Before that you should also see someone's initials that begin
and end with an underline. After you have reviewed the document, do a
Save AS to add your initials after the initials in the file name and
change the date.
For example: Suppose I reviewed this file:
IntroductionToImpress_20121201_JHW_MZ.odt. I finished the review and
uploaded the file on January 15, 2013. When I do the Save As, I change
the name of the file to IntroductionToImpress_20130115_JHW_MZ_DEL.odt
before saving it and uploading it to the Draft folder of the Impress
folder. I changed the date from 20121201 to 2013015 and added my
initials at the end (DEL).
So, when you upload the file, its name has been modified and you
do not then have to worry about overwriting a file.
You also have one more thing to do when uploading the file. You
need to change the status of the file once it is uploaded. Change its
state from Internal draft to Publish Internally.
--Dan
On 01/16/2013 11:24 AM, Kieran Peckett wrote:
Thanks everyone! One final question if possible: Do
I overwrite the existing doc on ODFAuthors, or make a different version
(say with "[Reviewed]" on the end of the filename)
On 16 January 2013 03:23, Jean Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Hazel Russman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:37:33 +0000
Kieran Peckett <[email protected]> wrote:
I already have a ODFAuthors account, but am not sure where to start.
I'm not sure which chapters of the CG I need to read, and some of the
chapters seem to be missing. Can you let me know which one explains
the different tasks (in particular proofreading and reviewing). I
have seen the first few, but I'm a bit stuck as to what I need to do
- the instructions on the of the page don't make sense
I would say that a reviewer studies the information in the document. Is
it correct? Is it easy to understand? Could it be done better - for
example by using lists or tables instead of plain text? Would
additional or different illustrations be appropriate? Has anything been
missed out that ought to be in there?
A proofreader looks for spelling and grammatical mistakes, smooth flow
of the language without unnecessary repetition, illustrations that show
what they're described as showing, correct numbering in lists, correct
cross-references, and so on.
A reviewer needs technical knowledge; a proofreader needs linguistic
fluency.
I agree with Hazel's summary, except that I would say a reviewer does
not necessarily need technical knowledge. Newbies can often spot
problems that knowledgeable readers won't notice, for example
regarding whether explanations are easy to understand or another
illustration would be helpful or the terms used in the text don't
match the terms in the illustrations.
Anyone can follow the instructions and look at the pictures while
using the program, and see if the dialog boxes have changed. Ideally,
each chapter would be reviewed by one person who is technically
knowledgeable and one person who is not, but that rarely occurs due to
lack of people.
Unfortunately, a lot of "reviewers" appear to read the chapter but
don't follow along using the program, because they don't spot what to
me are glaring differences between the illustrations and the dialog
boxes and thus notice things that need to be updated.
--Jean
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
