Re: a different resume red flag

Subject: Re: a different resume red flag
From: David Neeley <dbneeley -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:20:17 -0500

Personally, I believe this entire thread has been full of "red
herrings" (let alone red flags!).

The simple fact is that there are still multiple applicants for the
decent openings--and it is necessary to screen them in some effective

>From a resume, a website, or a sample document it may be instructive
to examine how they were constructed. After all, usually the hiring
authority is *comparing* a number of different candidates.

To believe that tool use is something that trumps skill in analysis or
presentation of content is to belittle the very real challenges of
running a docs department *and* screening applicants...often, while
also being a working docs lead with ongoing responsibilities which are
heavier when there is a vacancy in the department.

Let us suppose you have a pile of ten or twenty resumes (or fifty...),
many with associated information as indicated. Since these materials
are proferred as examples of "putting ones best foot forward" we
should assume that they have been manicured to a high degree. Thus, it
seems a fully legitimate line of inquiry to determine how they are
constructed...and whether that may indicate a compatibility with the
standards followed by the hiring department.

Personally, when a Word formatted resume is requested, I *always* use
.rtf. For one thing, it cannot carry the sort of macro-viruses that
occasionally make the rounds. For another, I needn't worry about
whether I have been negligent and submitted a .doc with prior version
information in it...I know precisely what is in the material and what
is discoverable by the recipient. That is not always true with .doc

Today, many HR departments are going to tools that use one of the XML
languages developed for HR. At present, I am creating a version of my
own resume using the HR schema--which I shall offer to supply to any
organization that might find it useful for automatic integration with
their chosen tools. (

Additionally, I am moving my HTML work largely to xHTML...including a
new personal website I am building at the moment. Again, I believe
that this represents a much better model for progressive Web
construction for organizations that are interested in taking full
advantage of the Web and its evolving standards.

Does any of this say much about my ability to perform the various
analysis and writing tasks needed for a techwriting job? Of course
not! However, the job is also one of mastering the craft--and this
craft is one with constantly changing skills. Thus, demonstrating a
willingness and an ability to change with the market seems to me to be
a useful indication of how well a writer will fit into any
organization, most particularly an organization that is attempting to
take advantage of new technologies.



ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed!

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


RE: a different resume red flag: From: Stephen Arrants
RE: a different resume red flag: From: Tony Markos

Previous by Author: Re: Image Comparison
Next by Author: Re: Subject: Virtual Machines for training
Previous by Thread: RE: a different resume red flag
Next by Thread: Re: a different resume red flag

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads