On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Jason Fayre wrote: > Is anyone on this list RHCE certified? As part of my job, I > have been requested to obtain RHCE certification. I am a > little concerned about the amount of X-based content on the > tests. I assume that this implies that there is known to be a significant amount of X related stuff? Any test that claims to have any kind of real general legitimacy in a scientific sense must be statistically validated under an appropriate set of assumptions, against two known and similar classes (populations, to use the jargon) of testees, with the composition of one of them already known, and serving as a standard (already competent Red Hat linux computer professionals, in this case). Any variation from that class, for an individual testee, in practical use, invalidates the test, NOT the testee, and the test should not be administered. Any competent tester should know this (but they often don't). WARNING: Stepping up to soapbox: There is a vast multi-billion dollar industry in selling all manner of tests of various things, professional competency being only one of them. Very few of the tests they sell are even poorly validated in the above sense (expensive and time consuming), but the sales pitch would indicate otherwise. In other words, most such tests are a scam, pure and simple, and the employer is being cheated (not to mention the employee, existing or potential). In short, taken as a whole, the "standardized" testing industry is a scam enterprise. Of course, there are exceptions, however rare. Selling and administering such junk tests is highly unethical, and in many cases should be treated as a felony, and criminally prosecuted in court. I think that one day that will happen, as the critics gain ground. Aside: This does not necessarily apply to Red Hat, whose certification program I know nothing about. I like the company. What does this mean to people with any kind of disability? As most of you know, there are infinite variations of disabilities, even in the same general type, and in the impact of such. It is impractical or impossible to validate or to construct tests for disabled people that really have any comparative meaning. That means that the tests that they put people through at rehab agencies and the like are _always_ a scam, if related to the disability in any way, even in the unlikely event that they had any real validity for a "normal population". And the "professional" testers that administer them are either incompetent or scam artists, usually both (you'd have to be pretty stupid to not suspect something was wrong after a while, if hired and maybe even trained to do this -- but people put mental blinders on themselves). But the people paying for the tests don't notice, because they aren't there (usually taxpayers or upper management), so the agency can still collect. <stepping off soapbox> > I will be taking the solaris tests soon, and those really don't > have much to do with X. Any input would be appreciated. Well, sometimes you have to jump through the hoops, however stupid, but the problem here is so obvious that you should be able to talk to your employer and the Red Hat people and at least ask them to make a special test for you, with substitutions of appropriate questions for functionality equivalent to the GUI stuff (non-validated, of course), in the text mode or braille and speech friendly area. You could also ask them to accept recast questions and answers, where you tell them how you would accomplish the same thing with other tools (with extra time allowances for essay answers). BTW, even delivering non-GUI questions from such a test, in an alternate accessible format, would invalidate the test, statistically speaking. They should see that as a fair request, but, no doubt, will quickly realize that the work and expertise involved in making or grading such a test would be prohibitive (they would have to come to someone like you to check on good substitutes for many or most questions), and the outcome subjective. A good boss will quickly realize, without prompting, that work experience is a better indicator anyway, and that they already know where you're at. Even in a "normal population" (to use the jargon), experience is a better indicator -- after all, that is what they have to validate tests against, if they are to be anything but a scam. Now, you know, and any good IT manager with Unix experience knows, that the GUI can never approach the functionality and versatility of what you have to know in text mode terms to do the same type of thing, and in the ability to look up and digest technical documentation, and the like. The fact is that blind computer professionals in *ix environments are going to be more competent than their counterparts, on average, probably dramatically. That doesn't mean there aren't some things that they can't do very well, or as easily, like supporting GUI only users in certain special contexts. But those cases would usually be a waste of your expertise anyway, and probably a real drag (your sighted counterparts may envy you your "out" in this sense). I think most of us would be interested to hear how all this pans out. I know I would. Good luck, LCR -- L. C. Robinson reply to no_spam+munged_lcr@onewest.net.invalid People buy MicroShaft for compatibility, but get incompatibility and instability instead. This is award winning "innovation". Find out how MS holds your data hostage with "The *Lens*"; see "CyberSnare" at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html