Re: Fwd: Re: Examining proficiency of job applicants in FrameMaker

["Gary S. Callison" <huey -at- interaccess -dot- com>]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, pnewman1 -at- optonline -dot- net (Peter) wrote:
> cartoon grrl wrote:
> | "Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- granatedit -dot- com> wrote:
> | > Ask them to write a two-page section of a manual explaining how to
> | > use FrameMaker's conditional text.
> | Good suggestion. I would add, ask them to explain when they'd use
> | variables instead of conditional text, or when to use text insets (and
> | the problems arising from their use). 

I don't particularly like either of those suggestions. If you want to test
somebody on a tool, give them a task that you figure it would take a 
person at the level of competence you're looking for about twenty minutes,
maybe half an hour to do, and tell them to do it. Give 'em a marked-up
hardcopy of a document and the same file on a computer and tell them
"make these changes". Give them two hardcopies, a 'before' and 'after',
and then give them the 'before' file on the computer. ...or something
like that. Then, twenty minutes later, go in there and see how they're
doing. If they're staring vacantly into helpfiles trying to figure out
why the outline numbering is broken, or if the document is done to spec
and they're just sitting there filing their nails, or if you ask if
they're done and they say "I was done a few minutes ago, now I'm just
font-fondling", each of those outcomes tells you something about their
facility with the tool. After the interview, look at the file. 

Facility with a tool shouldn't be that hard to measure without asking
obscure tool-geek questions that whassisname the Australian Word
consultant-guy could probably answer but many competent tool-users might
not.

> Why isn't it more important to verify their ability to organize and 
> convey concepts? Tool use can be learned.

Today, I found what I'm going to use for the next interview I have to be a
part of, either as the interviewer or the interviewee: one page of text. 

This piece of deathful prose contains language the likes of which, in the
most absinthe-fueled 4AM drunken raging college dorm room English-major
drinking-contests to see who could write the most horridly malformed
sentences, would handily win the prize (generally another beer) and end
the contest with the rest of the competitors hanging their heads in shame
and claiming that "it wasn't as good as that paper I wrote on Pink Floyd
last year, though". [1] This is some bad writing. I had to go out to
lunch and wash my brain out with a beer after reading it. It is pure evil
on paper. This document will hurt your eyes.

It also contains, buried deeply within it, the actual content: four
functional requirements for one module of my current project. 

Anyone want to restart the 'content is all that matters' flamewar? Let me
tell you, it's not. If content was all that mattered, this page would not
cause physical pain just to look at. It would be possible to read this,
and instantly understand those four requirements; instead, after about
half an hour of staring at it, you're left with the urge to find the
original author and teach them a remedial english composition class,
focusing on both sentence and paragraph structure, and basic tips on the
organization of ideas. You contemplate what possible learning
disabilities could be implied by this. And then, after distilling those
four points into simple paragraphs, you want to print it out and show it
to people - both because no one could possibly believe your description
of how bad the original was, and also because you'd like to show off your
ability to organize the most craplicious blobs of textual effluence into
something that clearly and concisely describes the same process. "Look at
me, aren't I cool? One dragon at a time, baby, one dragon at a time!"

The 'before' and 'after' is going in my portfolio, for when I'm the
interviewee. The 'before' will be my new test, when I'm the interviewer.
Applicants will be scored on their ability to get close to 'after'.
Tool use? Eh, it's Word. If you know what styles are, or can at least be
taught to use them, great. So long as they aren't aligning their text
with hard spaces, hard tabs, and hard carriage returns, I'm happy. And
even if they are, I can fix that with a couple macros. 

...but if the content doesn't make any sense, now _that's_ a problem.

[1] I usually did well in these, based almost entirely on my unwillingness
to end a sentence. String enough phrases together, and sooner or later
you're bound to confuse tenses or forget what phrase has to agree with
what. Someday, I will write a PDQ Bach-inspired writing handbook called
"You can't end a sentence".

-- 
Huey