[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Improving the JobOffer view

From: Davi Leal
Subject: Re: Improving the JobOffer view
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:08:24 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > A job offer has been posted

The above id=39 offer was already removed, so we can not 'play' with it. :) I 
have enabled again some demo offers to work on.

> >   1. Should we replace
> >        "Birthdate: 1983"  with  "Birth year: 1983"  ?
> I'd go with "Born".

Both, Victor and you agree!  You can see how such "Born" look at one of the 
re-enabled demo offers,

> >   2. Should we replace
> >        "EMPLOYER"  with  "POSITION OFFERED BY" or
> >        "PROPOSED BY" or
> >        something similar?
> If this is not an employment contract (which confers certain rights
> and responsibilities on the taker, like sick pay, quit notices and so
> on), then it should be changed.  I'd suggest "Offered by".

I would like to know what Victor think about it, due to Victor wrote:
> Another small thing: How about moving the employer type to the heading,
> and using "Name" instead. I.e., heading like "Employer (person)", and
> "Name: Crossland , Dave"? For any other employer types than "Person",
> we could then use just the type, i.e., "Company" or "Organization". It
> should be fairly obvious from the context that "Company" or
> "Organization" is the employer (not so much with "Person"), without
> pointing it out. I guess it's a matter of brevity vs. clarity. What do
> you think?        


Flames needed, as usual!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]