Technical Editing

September 4, 2008 10 Comments »
Technical Editing

OK…almost a week now and no posts?  I have a good excuse.  :-)

Back in June Matt Lombard asked me to be the Technical Editor for his upcoming SolidWorks 2009 Bible.  Having never worked directly on a project with Matt nor on a book of this size, I thought it was a great opportunity and gladly accepted his offer.  Even though this was only an update to the 2007 Bible, 1100 pages and two software revisions has proven to be quite a bit of work.  Its a great way to dig into MANY of the details of SolidWorks 2009 and also provide some additional support for what is already the most complete book on SolidWorks ever produced.

It has proven to be what I thought it was.  An enjoyable but time consuming task.  This is actually the second SolidWorks book I have been Technical Editor on.  The first book was the SolidWorks for Dummies, 2nd Edition authored by Richard Doyle, so I pretty much knew what I was getting into.

The early release from the SolidWorks 2009 NDA combined with the launch of my new site got me a little behind on my technical editing but I am happy to report that after a BUNCH of work this past week I’m back on target and only have a few sections to finish.  I have been VERY impressed with what Matt has added to the book and I highly encourage you to check it out when it is released.  No…this is NOT a paid advertisement.  :-)

Make sure you check out The SW Geek’s contest where you could win a 2009 Bible.

I should be able to roll out a few posts before going on a fun filled week long vacation to Disney World on September 12th.  If you follow me on Twitter, I’ll be posting from all around the Disney parks the whole time I am there.

Stay tuned….more to come!

Related Posts

  • Many reviewers on Amazon.com made it clear just how poorly written The SolidWorks 2007 Bible was and they slammed by author Matt Lombard even though there were right about how poorly written the SolidWorks 2007 Bible was.

    I fail to see how the SolidWorks 2009 Bible could be any worse.

    If the SolidWorks 2009 Bible is anything like this blog it will be a massive improvement.

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA

  • The Disqus Comment System needs to allow a way for a commenter to edit their comments. In the mean time can the technical reviewer correct my comment above by adding the word “were” between “they” and “slammed”.

    Thank you,

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA

  • Jon,

    Matt has addressed some of your concerns with the 2007 Bible on his Blog. I don't think we really need to rehash any of that here. :-)

    As far as the Amazon reviews go, Matt has a recent post talking about this as well. I found that all of the reviews that were 2 stars or below seem to be new users to SolidWorks. This book is directed more towards Intermediate and Advanced Users. That is the unique thing about the book.

    You will find a little less “commenting” in this book as Matt has said. Having been through almost every single page of it now, there is no doubt in my mind that there isn't anything else out there like it. Like any 2nd edition you will find many improvements over the 1st. I think it is a GREAT book.

    As far as the Disqus comments go….I don't think I have seen a feature like that on any other Blog. I cannot change another user's comments. Once you write it…that's it. All of the comments are hosted on the Disqus servers so I can't even do a database mod. I even have a few limitations on what I can change with my own comments.

    Ricky Jordan

  • Lombard’s commenting was beyond annoying and detracted from a book that was already very fragmented. In addition, subjects like multi-bodies shouldn't be covered near the end of the book. It's a basic part modeling technique that is used all the time when you use a product like VX.

    What I'd really like to see is someone take a fresh approach that's tutorial based. I believe that a tutorial based approach would be a far better approach than what exists now in the SolidWorks 2007 Bible. Why not give someone hands on and work the explanation into the tutorial rather than hit the reader with a ton of boring theory first that is hard to relate to without actually using that theory. What can't be worked into the tutorial can be done afterwards when the reader has gotten the hands on.

    Lombard's approach is of all theory upfront and tutorials at the end of the chapters are the wrong approach for many users not just beginners. Lombard's not for beginners excuse is beyond lame.

    As far as Disqus is concerned if it' isn't flexible enough to let users edit their comments I hope someone else comes along with something better because what exists now is too limited.

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA

  • Jon,

    As I have explained to you before, the multibodies chapter comes after the assemblies chapter for a number of reasons, which are explained in the book, in my blog and in other responses to this criticism fom you. Multibody approaches require some discipline to avoid some of the potential problems. Maybe there is no downside to using multiple bodies in VX, I don't know, I didn't write a book about VX, I wrote about SolidWorks.

    A tutorial based approach is not exactly fresh, and frankly, I didn't want to write a tutorial based book because it conveys limited information. I wanted to write a desk reference, so that's what I did. If you don't like it, you are more than welcome to buy a Sham Tickoo book, which is probably more on your level, or the Dummies book, better yet.

    The 2007 book was the first of its kind to take a deeper look at SW, to talk about the flaws in the software, to talk about “why” rather than simply “how”, and to tackle some of the more advanced topics like multibodies, master model, surfacing, and so on. Since what you are primarily interested in is making changes to imported geometry, you should focus on tools that handle what you need to do rather than criticizing everything else because it doesn't do everything the way a person who doesn't use it thinks it should be done.

    Even though I don't push the book for beginners, I've had a lot of beginners tell me they learned the software from my book, and they loved the book. Maybe you could explain in detail why you think a hold-my-hand tutorial is necessary in a desk reference for experienced users?

    The book is not a novel it is a desk reference. It is not meant to entertain you from beginning to end, it is meant to inform you on specific topics.

    It's interesting how much blogger ass you kiss as long as someone allows your bitter and spiteful comments to remain available, It is also interesting how quickly your tune changes as soon as you show your colors and your stuff gets yanked. Novedge offers a great blog with great interviews to the CAD, DCC and CG communities. They had to yank inappropriate and inaccurate comments from you. It's also interesting how you loved my book until I disagreed with you about something. And now you're over on Roopinder's blog bad mouthing SW bloggers.

    Anyway, Jon, if you ever have any constructive suggestions about my books, I'll be glad to listen. Lots of reader suggestions were included in the new version. In the mean time. It wouldn't be a bad thing if you put your energy into contributing to two sided discussions rather than lavishing gratuitous personal insults on anyone who dares to disagree with you.

  • I've made many constructive suggestions to Lombard about his SolidWorks 2007 Bible book and the result was Lombard decided he didn’t want them on his blog. I still have many of these comments saved and since Lombard doesn't want to be honest about what he did and that he censored my constructive criticism on his blog I'll put them on my blog of others to read.

    Lombard's attitude here is much like the many users he put down on amazon.com who have legitimate criticism of his SolidWorks 2007 Bible book. Many of those who criticized Lombard’s book were not newbies.

    Lombard has zero interest in a two-sided discussion and his latest ploy is to try and get the Usenet group alt.machines.cnc moderated. This ploy is going to fail. Anyone can check the Usenet group comp.cad.solidworks for why Lombard’s latest ploy won't work and what he tried to do.

    Lombard has hit a new low with his attempts to put down another author like Sham Tickoo. Doing this to try and make himself look better is just pathetic.

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA

  • Correction:

    Lombard has zero interest in a two-sided discussion and his latest ploy is to try and get the Usenet group comp.cad.solidworks moderated. This ploy is going to fail. Anyone can check the Usenet group comp.cad.solidworks for why Lombard’s latest ploy won't work and what he tried to do.

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA

  • OK…I am ending this BEFORE it gets out of hand. This has gone on and on now across several websites and I'm not interested in having this debate here. All parties just need to agree to disagree on this.

  • Ok…A few months have gone by since this post went live and comments were left. Mr. Banquer has now taken it upon himself to cry foul over the fact that two of his comments were pulled from this thread and decided to launch personal attacks against me and other SolidWorks Bloggers. Given Jon’s past history and reputation I can’t say I’m surprised. :-)

    His two posts are the only two posts (not including SPAM) that have been pulled on this site. Here is why. I tried to “nicely” tell him that this entire discussion on his opinions of Matt's book were already hashed out over at Matt's Blog and in other newsgroups on the web. Rehashing all of that here serves NO benefit to the readers of his site. I allowed Jon to once again post his opinions of the book on this site (as you can see if you scroll up a bit) and then I allowed Matt to respond with his thoughts. At that point I closed the discussion because the comments from there were getting too malicious and frankly were not bringing ANY value to the readers of this site. Sharing opinions is encouraged on this site….but I require that they be done in a respectful & professional manner.

    This site was created to benefit SolidWorks users. I feel it provides resources that were not available many moons ago when I started learning SolidWorks own my own. It is not a “Fanboy” site or a site created for press credentials as Mr. Banquer has stated. With the time I put in this site, I could easily make enough money to pay for a couple of trips to SolidWorks World. This site is all about sharing information about how to use SolidWorks. I enjoy the interaction with the readers and spend several hours a month answering e-mail questions about SolidWorks …..and I enjoy every second of it.

    Nuff said….let's get back to some things that actually HELP users. :-)

    Ricky Jordan

  • Ok…A few months have gone by since this post went live and comments were left. Mr. Banquer has now taken it upon himself to cry foul over the fact that two of his comments were pulled from this thread and decided to launch personal attacks against me and other SolidWorks Bloggers. Given Jon’s past history and reputation I can’t say I’m surprised. :-)

    His two posts are the only two posts (not including SPAM) that have been pulled on this site. Here is why. I tried to “nicely” tell him that this entire discussion on his opinions of Matt's book were already hashed out over at Matt's Blog and in other newsgroups on the web. Rehashing all of that here serves NO benefit to the readers of his site. I allowed Jon to once again post his opinions of the book on this site (as you can see if you scroll up a bit) and then I allowed Matt to respond with his thoughts. At that point I closed the discussion because the comments from there were getting too malicious and frankly were not bringing ANY value to the readers of this site. Sharing opinions is encouraged on this site….but I require that they be done in a respectful & professional manner.

    This site was created to benefit SolidWorks users. I feel it provides resources that were not available many moons ago when I started learning SolidWorks own my own. It is not a “Fanboy” site or a site created for press credentials as Mr. Banquer has stated. With the time I put in this site, I could easily make enough money to pay for a couple of trips to SolidWorks World. This site is all about sharing information about how to use SolidWorks. I enjoy the interaction with the readers and spend several hours a month answering e-mail questions about SolidWorks …..and I enjoy every second of it.

    Nuff said….let's get back to some things that actually HELP users. :-)

    Ricky Jordan