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 agree - Testing is a waste of time. Your silly test
> could hinder you
> from hiring a potentially brilliant employee simply because
> that person may
> be one who suffers from "test taking syndrome" or had a bad
> day. Testing is
> not a true measurement of a people's ability.
No, it's not a true measure, but I think it could be a measure, just
as the interview and past experience are measures. In my current job, I
didn't get a test, but I was still evaluated on my ability to rapidly
assimilate and regurgitate knowledge.
> What can you really tell from a test? It may tell you if they
> can edit or
> organize information, but it cannot tell you how they blend
That seems like an important thing to know about a tech writer. If
they can't do that, then the documentation may not be well organized, no
matter how well they get along with the SME.
> in with a team,
> persevere when no one returns proofs, gain the respect of
> engineers and
> co-workers or are motivated to grow and learn new things.
All of these things are important, too, but they are harder to test
in a quantitative way. This is why we have references, too, right?
hwaterhouse -at- videoupdate -dot- com