Expand my Community achievements bar.

The Community Advisors application is now OPEN for the second class of 2024. Apply to become a part of this exclusive program!

Giving Context when asking folks to proof something

Avatar

Level 5
Hi All I poured over all the proofing conversations in here, so I do have them as a backdrop- but throwing some more questions at ya: I manage a creative services department. We're about to pilot the proofing functionality within workfront. (not sure if there is a difference between Workfront Proof, or in the documents section generating a proof - for now I'm referencing the latter). I think I've made some decisions regarding workflow: We have PMs- they will be the ones generating the proof and routing for approval, assessing the comments, answering questions, locking the proof and then giving to the design team to make edits. (Would love to see the process doc on exactly HOW other shops do that (i.e- designer uploads a document, notifies the PM via directed update, and then the PM generates the proof, naming conventions, etc.) Any feedback/advice on the following would be greatly appreciated: Current State: we're not using the "generate proof" in the documents section, only using documents at the project level and a folder structure to review creative internally and sending pdfs via email to get feedback from clients. Currently we have a custom form (see attached) to give our copyeditors very specific directions as to what they are proofreading for- we've been attaching to documents (pdf) when we ask our copyeditors to proofread. This has worked great, because each round- we uploaded a new document- and it's very easy for them to reference their instructions. With the "generate proof" feature- is it possible to add custom forms to each VERSION of the proof? And if the answer is no- any suggestions on how/where we can give specific instructions to the copyeditor assigned to proofread? Obviously directed update is probably an option- but we like the idea of a form because it forces consistency. Do folks have different workflows for internal reviews vs. external reviews differently How do folks handle text heavy proofing? For us- It seems that when we are are the copywriting phase in word- track changes is more efficient vs. generating a proof. Thoughts? What's your folder structure for proofing? We have a very traditional in house creative services model, and I don't want to reinvent the wheel!!!! I would love to hop on a call with any other users out there who has a successful workflow using the PROOF feature- any takers? Anyone willing to share their process docs? Any lessons learned you would share? Thanks in advance to this awesome Workfront Tribe! Karen Karen Rutz Harvard: Alumni Affairs & Development
6 Replies

Avatar

Level 10
hi Karen, I haven't done this myself but to answer your question about your copyeditor's form, I would assume that in order to attach it to each proof, you would have to make it a custom form on the proof. Before they change the link, I would go here to read more on this: "https://support.workfront.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004310427-Creating-and-Managing-Custom-Fields" title="https://support.workfront.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004310427-Creating-and-Managing-Custom-Fields">https://support.workfront.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004310427-Creating-and-Managing-Custom-Fields The tough part would be when to attach and fill out the fields. I believe (maybe I'm wrong) -- it can only be done through the Add New Proof / More + New Version + Proof actions. This creates a bit of a catch-22 -- if you already uploaded your file, where would you go to access the info on this page? Anyhow, hope this gives you a direction to go in for more exploration on Proof features. -skye

Avatar

Level 10
Hi Karen, Process: For the first version, the art person finishes their task and gives the PM the path to the art server where the file is. The PM then gets that an uploads the proof in the Project's Documents tab Add New -> Proof option. They upload the file, attach the automated workflow template, enter (or check) the people for each stage, add a custom note and then create proof. They then monitor it, make changes mid-flight, etc. For additional versions, the art person will have gone through the proof to resolve any To Do comments and makes changes. When they are done, they tag the PM in a proof comment and puts the path on the art server to the new version. And the process repeats. Custom Forms: Custom forms are only at the document level, they are not at the document version level. We just use the custom message option when creating the proof to tell the Editorial/Proofreaders what they need to do (i.e. cold read, compare against version X, fact check, etc.). There are some groups that will also put that information as the first comment in the proof once that version is done generating. Internal v. External: Internally we use automated workflows that go through the various department. For external, depends if they want the client to see internal comments or not and if the team wants internal people to see all the external comments. Various methods used: Have a separate "Routes to Clients" and a clean copy is uploaded and only sent to the client A clean version is upload and the client is added to the workflow, but since they are not on the previous version, they cannot see it to compare, but we can internally A client is added to a stage at the very end of the workflow and they see it after the internal team does (only do this if you want them to see internal comments) Text-Heavy: For us, the copywriters "owe" the text. So editors just make comments and account decides STET or To Do. And then the copywriter has to make the changes. Track Changes doesn't work for us because the copywriters don't want the editors actually making any changes to their file. Folder Structure: Varies by group. Most just have a "Routes to Team" and "Routes to Client" folder. If there are multiple assets for a project, they might break the folders by asset. Hope this helps. Anthony Imgrund FCB

Avatar

Level 5
Thanks everyone!!!!!! Anthony-great details and food for thought here! I have to go talk to my team now..... Karen Karen Rutz Harvard: Alumni Affairs & Development

Avatar

Level 2
Hi Karen, We are new to Workfront - just launched in March. We are a Marcom team within a large corporation and are essentially in-house creative services. So far we have no idea what the "way we are supposed to be doing things" really is. We launched using WF Proof. Without have used an alternate method, I really don't have much to compare it to. I have pondered all of the same questions as you though! I cannot so far find a good way to provide context and really help my users (who are not within our team) to figure out what to do with a proof. I would be very open to joining you (or anyone!) on a call to discuss our concerns and share any tips each other has found. Susie Susie Lage Western Digital

Avatar

Level 8
We're about to pilot the proofing functionality within workfront. (not sure if there is a difference between Workfront Proof, or in the documents section generating a proof- for now I'm referencing the latter). Workfront has a rudimentary document approval process for "Non-Proof" customers which happens to reside alongside the paid "Workfront Proof" functionality. Sometimes this can be confusing because the UI does not provide enough distinction between them. But anyways, if you are paying for the additional proofing functionality any time that you click on Generate Proof you are going to turn your " Document " into a " Proof " (this is a very important distinction) We have PMs- they will be the ones generating the proof and routing for approval, assessing the comments, answering questions, locking the proof and then giving to the design team to make edits. (Would love to see the process doc on exactly HOW other shops do that (i.e- designer uploads a document, notifies the PM via directed update, and then the PM generates the proof, naming conventions, etc.) We have artists upload the proof and then change ownership to a project coordinator, the project coordinator either routes the proof themselves or routes it to the PM who then routes the proof. We don't want artists trying to figure out who the proof should go to, their time should be spent on what they're good at. If your operation does not have coordinators then having the artists change ownership to the PMs seems reasonable. Current State: we're not using the "generate proof" in the documents section, only using documents at the project level and a folder structure to review creative internally and sending pdfs via email to get feedback from clients. You should start familiarizing yourself with the proofing functionality that you're paying for. Please stop sending PDFs if you're paying for Workfront Proof. People have various custom workflows for a variety of circumstances Proofing should be final art only - this is not a time for major copywriting edits - there are specific tools for that. Proof HQ was the reason that we went with Workfront and we are heavy users of the proofing functionality. Are you going to Leap? Leap could be a good investment for someone in your shoes. We have an in house creative agency which manages their work and proofing through Workfront, I'd be happy to help answer any questions that you may have. Richard Carlson Behr Process Corporation

Avatar

Level 2
Thanks, Richard. Helpful. I will have to look into what the "changing ownership" of the proof looks like. Our designers are not super great at using Workfront tools yet and would honestly prefer not to have to learn bells and whistles... but that puts more burden on the PM's to create that "flawless experience" for them. So that is a good takeaway for me. Susie Lage Western Digital