On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, A.R. (Tom) Peters wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Josh Arnold wrote:
> > Faber Fedor wrote:
> > > At 10:35 PM 6/24/99 -0400, Richard Rager wrote:>
>
> %< cut >%
>
> > > I think Richard has a point, namely, do we test for jargon?
> > >
> > > I can see why we should, but I don't see how. I, for one, would not trust
> > > an admin who didn't know the difference between an MUA and and MAU.
> >
> > I don't see any point in testing for "jargon". We should simply use the
> > appropriate acronyms in the tests and then the curricula can address it as
> > needed.
>
> [snip]
> People unfamiliar with the acronyms probably will not understand
> the question, so indirectly we test their knowledge of it.
Absolutely ... as long as the questions are clear about context. We
should select TLAs with care. There are too many TLAs that overlap
without careful context. AFS is one such TLA within computing, cross-
field TLAs like ATM security and PAP (Pay At Pump) can just be annoying.
TLAs will also require careful maintenance by LPI. E.g., I've recently
seen MUA published to mean Music User Application (a'la MP3 app). Gak!
> Now I don't
> like to put that in the test objectives, but we have to decide on some
> policy and maybe even make a list of acronyms we might use in the tests
> (if any). Note that training organisations need to have a clue what
> acronyms to explain, because nobody is going to know what is in the tests.
Yes!!
-- Paul Manno
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
