I don’t know how many times while reading a technical book, it does not matter if it is a book about programming in C Sharp or creating a circuit and then sketch for an Arduino project I always find some sort of technical error in the text. The first thing that could come out of my mouth would be something similar to, “Well, mister/miss author, you certainly did not do much research on this code.” Or, the author will walk you through a group of steps performing a function within the application and you believe ‘your’ way to be much less time consuming or more intuitive.
I have found this is not necessarily correct. I have spent more than a few hours working in Microsoft Visual Studio, creating and deleting solutions trying to find the best way to perform a specific task. Needless to say I have at my disposal now multiple ways to accomplish the same goal and now I must decide on which procedure to publish. Do I assume the one I publish is the best overall or do I publish all of them possibly leaving out a set of steps one of my readers use that they think is less time consuming or more intuitive. That sounds familiar doesn’t it?
I have been a technical reviewer for some publishers, most of which involved C Sharp code and 3D models. I have always been given the manuscripts to review however it was like pulling teeth to get the models and code out of some authors to review prior to publication and one particular book I never was able to see the code or models. In my experience I can see how some reviewers can and do miss errors in the code or procedures. My dilemma, publish what I think to be the best solution, publish multiple solutions or all that I found. Something to think about.
On another subject, I completed the 16 hour C# course in Udemy this weekend. Started a course about Excel Dashboards with interactive charts etc., ultimately completing this course last night. Today I am starting “Becoming A Writer”, I guess I better start this course.
Everyone have a great day and Wonderful Week!
