> You cannot possibly expect every developer, even very experienced ones, to know every nook and cranny of every technology you specifically work with, but they are experienced enough to know how learn new skills quickly to complete a project.
I am specifically not doing that. Nor did my comments really warrant thinking that (maybe because I mentioned WCAG 2.0?). Testing, accessibility, architecture and good semantic code are skills that apply to all work in the front end space. If you're an experienced dev but you don't do those things, then I'm not exactly sure what experienced means? I don't want someone who has just built features without those things. It doesn't matter what framework you use or what libraries you know. I'm not sure how you took my comments to mean I'm doing this. I specifically tell candidates that we can teach them our specific tooling and about our business domain.
From my original comment I said "...aren't up to date on practices we care about, like accessibility, semantic HTML, app architecture etc" Perhaps "up to date" was the phrase that got under people's skin? Best practices are always evolving, but in all those categories, there is a pretty commonly understood bar of skills, and I often receive assignments that miss those marks.
Finally, I have encountered situations where one of those has been very under-skilled (most commonly accessibility), but the others were strong (testing, architecture, html/css). I have made calls in that case to hire with a plan that we'll work on the lagging skill.
I think in this case my comments were extrapolated on in an unwarranted manner. The internet isn't a perfect way to communicate, but at the end of the day I didn't say anything that is unreasonable. Also, it sounds like we're both in agreement on what makes for a good engineer.
I am specifically not doing that. Nor did my comments really warrant thinking that (maybe because I mentioned WCAG 2.0?). Testing, accessibility, architecture and good semantic code are skills that apply to all work in the front end space. If you're an experienced dev but you don't do those things, then I'm not exactly sure what experienced means? I don't want someone who has just built features without those things. It doesn't matter what framework you use or what libraries you know. I'm not sure how you took my comments to mean I'm doing this. I specifically tell candidates that we can teach them our specific tooling and about our business domain.
From my original comment I said "...aren't up to date on practices we care about, like accessibility, semantic HTML, app architecture etc" Perhaps "up to date" was the phrase that got under people's skin? Best practices are always evolving, but in all those categories, there is a pretty commonly understood bar of skills, and I often receive assignments that miss those marks.
Finally, I have encountered situations where one of those has been very under-skilled (most commonly accessibility), but the others were strong (testing, architecture, html/css). I have made calls in that case to hire with a plan that we'll work on the lagging skill.
I think in this case my comments were extrapolated on in an unwarranted manner. The internet isn't a perfect way to communicate, but at the end of the day I didn't say anything that is unreasonable. Also, it sounds like we're both in agreement on what makes for a good engineer.