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.
The inattention paid to the correct writing of the req would lead me to
view the ad with a great deal of skepticism. At this point I don't get too
excited about anything sent to me via Indeed, either.
That said, the req tells me that they really want more of a code
troubleshooter who is comfortable with the entire web stack, front-to-back,
a la something like MEAN.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Chris Morton <salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Could it be a typo, whereby "without" should really be "with"? It wouldn't
> be the first time a job req went out in this fashionâespecially if it had
> any inputs from a recruiting agency.
> If it isn't a typo, it sounds to me like the person who wrote the job req
> is ignorant regarding what Dreamweaver is; that is, my guess is that they
> think it's all GUI-based drag 'n drop without any lower-level HTML
> knowledge required. This is obviously a fallacy.
> My first inclination is to run away from this job posting as quickly as I
> can, for it reveals much more about that workplace than I care to deal
> On the other hand, if I'm really interested in the gig I might just ignore
> the "without" and proceed with my candidacy. If and when it leads to an
> actual job offer, at that time I could further assess whether or not it's a
> place I'd really care to work.
> > Chris
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Paul Hanson <twer_lists_all -at- hotmail -dot- com>
>> I just came across a job ad for a Technical Editor. This was listed as a
>> Create web pages without Dreamweaver or other HTML editor and troubleshoot
>> HTML style issues, tag issues, etc.
>> My first reaction is that, within Dreamweaver, I know there is a menu
>> that will validate your code. If I was troubleshooting "style issues, tag
>> issues, etc", I would probably fire up DW and paste the existing code into
>> the HTML editor window pane of DW and validate the code to at least give
>> a starting point. I'd also use the HTML validator that the W3 site has.
>> My second reaction is that they want a person who understands HTML tags
>> doesn't believe a proper web page is saving a Word doc as HTML and calling
>> it a web page, which I think is a valid request since "technical" is in
>> title's position.
>> What is your reaction to it?
>> Paul Hanson
>> My blog: http://prhmusic.blogspot.com
>> My (frequently ignored) Twitter: @prhmusic
>> Read about how Georgia System Operation Corporation improved teamwork,
>> communication, and efficiency using Doc-To-Help | http://bit.ly/1pJ4zPa
>> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
>> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our
>> online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
>> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
Read about how Georgia System Operation Corporation improved teamwork, communication, and efficiency using Doc-To-Help | http://bit.ly/1pJ4zPa