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.
"Giordano, Connie" wrote:
>Damien's and others' answers indicate that developers often get tested for
>proficiency--which makes me wonder why so many tech writers are offended by
>writing tests. If the development staff takes some sort of test to prove
>their proficiency, what makes writers so special? And no, I don't mean
>to tie a shoe" type tests. I mean tests that show ability to grasp the
>overall concept of the product, write some basic procedural and conceptual
>information, and ask questions that demonstrate curiosity.
Dick Margulis replied:
>I think most tech writers recognize the value to a prospective employer of
weeding >out the poseurs and are quite content to submit to reasonable
testing to >demonstrate objectively that they are who they say they are.
Up until, um, a month ago, I'd have agreed solidly with Connie and Dick. I
still do, mostly. But not that long ago I was invited to an interview and
warned that there would be a technical writing test: "Take a spec and turn
it into user documentation". (Yes, at the interview.)
The interview was for an experienced technical writer to set up a technical
writing department, and when I heard that this was their idea of a good
technical writing test I boggled, slightly, and said "They've never had any
technical writers working there before, have they?" -"How did you know?"
recruiter responds, astonished.
If I'd taken the interview (I didn't, for various reasons) I would, of
course, have taken the test.
But the test itself struck me as seriously flawed. I wouldn't normally
assume that I could produce good user documentation from a spec (unless all
that was wanted was a reference manual, and even then - ) A spec is a
starting point, not a be-all and end-all. (Though the job description also
specified "Create user documentation from specs" as one of the technical
writer's tasks, so maybe it *was* an appropriate test for the job...)
What's an appropriate response if you think the test is a poor way of
measuring your ability to do the job (but you still want the job)? I could
have asked at the interview (*after* the test) if this was how they assumed
their user documentation would get written, I suppose... <g> If that was
their plan, I somehow doubt that I would have been offered the job - but if
they saw no difficulties with the arrangement, I somehow doubt that I would
have wanted it.
Technical Writer, Compaq, UK
Unless stated otherwise, these opinions are mine, and mine alone.
Take XML and Tech Writing courses online! Our instructor-led courses
(4-6 hrs/wk) give you "hands on" experience at your convenience. STC members
get 20% off! http://www.online-learning.com/index.html.
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.