[thelist] HTML test (tip)

[Erika Meyer]

>I sorta figured you'd been treated to some lousy HTML tests.

I started to write an article about HTML tests, got bored, and ended 
up writing about Elvis.  Oh well.

So anyway, here's what my testing experiences were:

1. a multiple choice HTML4 test on quiz.com.  This was the best 
because it was not horribly taxing, there were clear standards 
(HTML4), fairly clear guidelines, a certain number of questions, and 
answers that were either right or wrong.  I was never told how I 
scored, but that's okay. (Your tester is supposed to tell you, 
though.)  This test only showed how well I knew the specs, not what 
kind of coding decisions I might make.  I actually enjoyed taking 
this test.  It was a challenging test, but easier than actually 
writing code.

2.  a home-made test in which I was supposed to fix "errors" on a 
screwed up page.  This was a bit more taxing and headachey.  By the 
end I had it looking good, validating as HTML4 transitional, and I 
changed some IE-only text-rollover javascript to the CSS it was 
imitating.  I also killed the FONT tags.  (no guidelines were given.)

The test-giver called me.  He was a nice guy, but thought I was 
"overqualified."

3. A test for a very large web temp organization.  This test was the 
most challenging, and it specified HTML 3.2 code.  I burned thru, but 
didn't get the whole thing done in the hour they gave me.  (it was a 
lot for an hour: two pages with fairly complex table layout, images, 
links, and a hand-made image map.)

What made me angry was that the "evaluator" didn't really know 
anything about HTML or web design.  She didn't check most of the 
test, just spot checked a couple of obvious things.  For me to have 
worked so hard at it, they could have at least had it evaluated by 
someone who knew some HTML, and/or something about browsers and 
design issues.

My advice to anyone getting ready to take such a test is to try and 
get them to be as clear as possible regarding the criteria which 
they'll be using to judge the results.  Otherwise you'll waste time 
perfecting some detail the tester doesn't care about, while you could 
be working on a detail the tester finds terribly important.

My tester would have been a lot more impressed if I'd gone into the 
browser preferences and bumped up the default font size to make 
everything fit into the table exactly like it did on the paper.

>Heh. Anyhow, all of this is meant to say: Don't lose hope. There are 
>those of us out here who are proud of our craft and want to keep 
>pushing it forward. If you're ever in Atlanta, look up Renaissance 
>Interactive

sigh.  Thanks.  Again, wrong other side of the continent.  But I've 
seen your site & it does, indeed, offer hope.

aardvark: yes, exactly.  the test tells something about the 
organization giving it.  That's for sure!

Erika