Member Avatar for whitshade

I guess this is really a question of professional etiquette for web developers. I have been designing a pro bono web site for a local non-profit. Recently I was sent a document announcing an event that the rep for the organization wanted to have added to the site. This document was so sloppily and poorly written, I removed my name from the meta author field for fear that someone would think that I wrote it. Should I correct the mistakes, or am I just being OCD?

  • 4 Contributors
  • 7 Replies
  • 133 Views
  • 4 Days Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by whitshade

Dani AI

Generated

This is a common practical problem with a simple, low-risk pattern that keeps the client in control while improving the site’s readability and reducing future support questions.

Build a tiny, auditable workflow and follow it every time (keeps things tidy for pro bono and paid projects alike):

  • Work on a copy and archive the original so nothing is lost.
  • Make copyedits for grammar, punctuation and scannability only. If a change alters meaning (dates, prices, claims, quotes), mark it as a suggested rewrite rather than applying it silently.
  • Use tracked changes or inline comments (Word, Google Docs or your CMS) so the client can see exactly what changed and why.
  • Offer two versions when useful: a verbatim version and a web-optimized version (shorter paragraphs, clearer headings, calls to action). Reference the choice rather than forcing a tone change.
  • Capture explicit approval in writing (an email reply or a CMS note) before publishing. Keep a brief revision note in the CMS with the approver and date.

Practical cautions: never change legal or factual statements without explicit sign-off; if the edits grow into a rewrite, treat it as extra scope and clarify whether you’ll do it pro bono or bill for it; keep an audit trail instead of stripping metadata so future maintainers know what happened. For guidance on making text more scannable for web readers, see the Nielsen Norman Group’s writing-for-the-web advice and follow accessibility basics from W3C WCAG when reorganizing content.

A short approval template that works well:
Subject: Edited draft for [Event] — please review
Body: Attached are (1) original and (2) edited web-ready drafts with edits tracked. No facts were changed without note. Please reply "approved" to publish, or send corrections by [date].

This approach honours ’s concern about attribution, follows the spirit of and ’s points about responsibility, and applies ’s suggestion that web copy needs to be treated differently.


W3C WCAG

Recommended Answers

All 7 Replies

Member Avatar for Kraai

I would edit the document, and first show them the edited version, and if they are happy with that, upload it to the site. You are doing this pro-bona, so you are actually doing them an even bigger favour by correcting mistakes.

I always correct any grammar/spelling mistakes of my clients before publishing anything.

Member Avatar for whitshade

Thanks for the response, Kraai. It makes sense. If I were publishing a book for them, I'd make corrections, so why should a web site be any different? I guess I just needed confirmation that I was doing the right thing before I made the changes. Thanks again.

Member Avatar for Kraai

Cool, good luck!

Member Avatar for happygeek

I would add that you should always get confirmation/approval from your client before publishing something on their behalf that you have altered - purely from the legal liability perspective.

Member Avatar for whitshade

Will do, happygeek. Thanks for the advice.

Member Avatar for Arkinder

I realize this thread is solved, but I would just like to include that text for the web is rather different from physical documents. We read about 25% slower on our computers, and designers often rewrite text to a more condensed, scannable, web-friendly form. It is by no means uncommon and should be encouraged.

Regards, Arkinder

Member Avatar for whitshade

Thanks for your enlightening contribution, Arkinder. I had not thought of that before, but you make a very good point. It is the webmaster's perrogative to make information more accessible to a site's visitors, even if it calls for modifying manuscripts provided by the client. I will be sure to keep that in mind. Thanks again for your input.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.