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.
> take a look at what I was given and let me know what you would have
> said. I'll tell you how I answered in my next post. Here's the test:
>
> "In one paragraph (100 words or less) describe what should be included
> in a good documentation package, and explain why it would be good."
Jim:
If it were me, I'd have redlined the "less" and replaced it with
"fewer", inserted a comma after the closing paren, then refused to
continue until the question was retyped.
Or maybe I'd write, "A good documentation package should include good
documents (duh! lol) The reason it would be good, is because it has good
documents. If you hire me i will write good documents, and, try not to
write alot of bad documents so all the packages (or most of them anyways
lol) will be good. THANKS!!!", and I'd dot the exclamation points with
smiley faces.
... but that's mostly because I already have a job and would only be
interviewing for fun.
If I were approaching the test seriously, I guess I'd have an issue with
the 100-word limit: If it's just a test of writing ability, it's too
short to discriminate among mediocre, good, and great writers; it's
barely suitable for weeding out the completely incompetent. If it's not
just a writing test -- if the interviewer actually wants to know what I
think should go into a good documentation package -- then the assumption
that I can explain it in 100 words says a lot about his
(mis)understanding of the subject.
How'd you answer?
-Andrew
=== Andrew Warren - awarren -at- synaptics -dot- com
=== Synaptics, Inc - Santa Clara, CA
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- infoinfocus -dot- com -dot-
