Similar to peer review of essays, it was hard to get started in this process and it was hard to decide on how much I wanted to change. Simply making small edits is very different from restructuring the flow and organization of the training. Originally, I just made a document and wrote down a few notes about things that were no longer correct. This was specifically about the Classic vs New Map Viewer as Esri is officially phasing out the Classic version at the beginning of 2026. Similarly, there were spots in the training that said the New version was not capable of certain things which it now is. So, my first run through just noted all of these.
Then, I started to wonder if I could restructure the training so the headings/subheadings made a bit more sense in my mind. This is difficult because I don’t know if what makes more sense to me is the same for others who would be using this training in the future. I did another run through of the training, taking more detailed notes on what I would change (no matter how big or small) and what I liked about this version. There were places I thought could use more explanation (ie field types of data and how those are defined in computers as this is a pretty universal standard) and others where I though more visual aids that are either screenshots or more visual representations of information would be beneficial.
The process was surprisingly similar to writing an essay for a class. I wanted to make sure the progression made sense and sections that followed each other led there naturally. This was difficult because I was balancing the specific example of Grinnell population data and other info about ArcGIS that wasn’t exactly relevant to the example. I decided to follow the example more closely and add in additional info/features as side notes. I wanted the training to guide people more directly and keep them invested in the example they’re working on while also informing them on other alternatives so they’re prepared to help students working on different things.