There's no right answer to the level of detail thing but it's still interesting to see. If they tailor the info to the audience then that's a good thing in general. If they just say "it was a 3-tier app with a web front-end" then I'd probably push for more detail.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Noon Silk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Michael Minutillo > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've always been a fan of: "Pick the project you have most enjoyed > working > > on and describe in general terms it's architecture." Allow them to use a > > whiteboard and listen carefully to the terms they use. How well do they > > express themselves? What level of detail do they go to without prompting? > Do > > they use general pattern nomenclature? Towards the end start challenging > > technology decisions and see how they defend them. Ask them how they > tested > > the software. Ask them what they'd change if they were able to start > again. > > Not bad, but I'm not sure how much detail I'd go into in an actual > interview relates to what I'd say in a real meeting about the project. > I mean, chances are there is a non-technical at the meeting too, and > you wouldn't want to bore them. > > > > Also, I've never asked this one but: "Image that everyone who has been > > maintaining your code for the last 5 years is here right now. What do you > > say to them?" > > "I'm sorry". > > -- > Noon Silk > > http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/ (Noon Silk) | http://www.mirios.com.au:8081> > > "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy > of being this signature." >
