Keith Hoover recalls being asked to proofread photocopies against originals at a newspaper internship, only to discover the copy machine itself introduced errors. He uses this story to challenge whether design reviews of prototypes and samples actually add value or just check surface copies.
When I was in college, I worked as an intern for a newspaper. And the first day at the job, this guy handed me a stack of papers and copies. And he said, "Keith, go proofread these." And I said, "What?" He said, "Well, I made copies of this stack of paper." "Here's the copies. Can you proofread the Xeroxes against the originals?" And I was thinking, "Well, this guy doesn't understand technology," but I said, "Sure, but that's enough work to take 2 days." He said, "Take 2 days." So I, of course, took 2 days to do nothing. I actually went up and did a little side trip, but I came back, and to make sure that he understood that that this was a crazy idea. I actually, before Photoshop, I took one of the, in one of the copies I seen that he had misspelled a word. So I recreated the original and I spelled the word correctly. And I showed him, look, you were right. This copy machine made a mistake. Because now every week on, I got a new stack of papers to copyright and it was more time off. But ask yourself, when you're looking at prototypes, or you're looking at lab dips, or you're looking at fit, or whatever, are you proofreading a Xerox, or are you actually adding value?
