TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> I have to agree with John Posada on this one. Expecting
> someone to remember the intimate details of an application
> they wrote about 5 or 6 years ago is a rediculous expectation.
If they just cut and pasted information from an SME, then yes. But if they took
the time to learn the product/technology, then it isn't outlandish to expect them
to have a working knowledge of the technology.
> Andrew, I understand what you're saying, but judging someone
> based on their ability to regurgitate arcane information from
>half a decade ago isn't fair.
Its not about regurgitating arcane data. Its demonstrating that you have working
knowledge of the technology. That you internalized the information and then wrote
based on what you learned - not on what some SME barked out at you.
> Let me ask, what were the dlls for the application you were
> working on five years ago? What were the system requirements?
> Rattle it off the top of your head, don't look at your portfolio.
> Can you do it? If you can, then you've got a good memory.
> If you can't, you're just human. :-)
I documented protocol analyzers in 1996. I could tell you with grotesque detail
how a protocol analyzer works with no trouble whatsoever.
And I have a terrible memory.
> Sure, it's important that you can provide a summary of what
> the product does. Sure, you should go through your portfolio
> and familiarize yourself with what's there. Sure, you should
> limit your portfolio to a few really good pieces, that way you
> can actually keep track of what's in it. But you shouldn't
> have to remember every detail of something you did 5 years ago.
You're getting hung up on the "every detail" thing Sean. I never said you had to
know every detail. I said you should be able to demonstrate working knowledge of
the technology. This is especially true on material in a portfolio - material
you're showing off as your best work.
If you show me work you did, you had better be able to explain what it is you
wrote. Otherwise, its clear to me that you don't care about content. And since
content is 95% of what matters in a document, if you can't speak intelligently
about the content, then you are 95% unqualified for the job - in my opinion.
I have had people show me manuals and brag about how they used FrameMaker and
devised this amazing layout. To me that is like telling me you drove a blue car
to get to the interview. Its irrelevant if the content sucked or you didn't
understand it.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All-new RoboHelp X3 is now shipping! Get single sourcing, print-quality
documentation, conditional text and much more, in the most monumental
release ever. Save $100! Order online at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
Buy ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 6.0, the most powerful SINGLE SOURCE HELP
AUTHORING TOOL for MS Word. SAVE $100 on the full version and $50 on the
upgrade. Offer ends 10/31/2002 (code: DTH102250). http://www.componentone.com/d2hlist1002
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
