3 ms·

I would argue LaTeX is the wrong tool for a resume. A resume, like a poster or graphical magazine article, is all about visual presentation and layout. This req

by kqr 4y ago

I would argue LaTeX is the wrong tool for a resume. A resume, like a poster or graphical magazine article, is all about visual presentation and layout. This requires pixel-perfect control over where things are, and somewhat detailed ways to coordinate positions of things. All of these are things LaTeX is bad at[1]. For visual presentation, I would suggest desktop publishing software are the right tool for the job. I personally like Scribus because it's open soucre. Something like this is trivial with desktop publishing and would be really time consuming with LaTeX: https://i.xkqr.org/screenshot_2023-01-24T19:21:25.png https://i.xkqr.org/screenshot_2023-01-24T19:21:25.png [1]: The strength of LaTeX is in consistently typesetting long texts well – it's nearly unbeatable in that area.

dietrichepp 4y ago
I did mine in ConTeXt, which is IMO more suited to general-purpose work and futzing with the layout than LaTeX is. I generally edit the résumé and fine-tune it for each position I’m applying for. That’s easy to do when the sources are plain text, and I can just diff different versions to see what edits I’ve made in the past. I’m not applying for graphics design or marketing positions. A résumé can look nice, but it’s not all about visual presentation and layout—it’s about content first, and the layout is just there to support the content and make it easy to read. Long ago, I made my résumé using professional layout software. Adobe InDesign, actually. I switched to ConTeXt mostly because it’s easier to make content changes. I haven’t used Scribus, but my experience is that making content changes in layout software is often annoying, unless you’re using some really basic templates or you’ve put a lot of work into your workflow.
DicIfTEx 4y ago
As someone who generally enjoys using LaTeX, who spent several years maintaining a LaTeX CV and who switched to Scribus a couple of years ago, this is bang-on. The content–styling separation is very intuitive in Scribus (and, I assume, other DTP tools): define the bounds of your text boxes (and link them if required for your intended document layout), then edit the text in a seperate box and instantly see how it flows into the defined area(s). Of course, most of the jobs I've applied for in recent years have required me to enter my experience section-by-section into a Web form, negating the purpose of the CV entirely. Once or twice I've seen tools that allow you to upload your CV PDF and then attempt to extract as much info from it as possible. It's never gone very well, so it does make me think that LaTeX vs DTP vs Word is a less pertinent question to debate than ‘how can I produce a CV that can best be automatically parsed’. Absent any sort of structured CV data standard, I assume that means using the most widely-used tool to produce it, i.e. Word.

by kqr 4y ago

dietrichepp 4y ago

I did mine in ConTeXt, which is IMO more suited to general-purpose work and futzing with the layout than LaTeX is. I generally edit the résumé and fine-tune it for each position I’m applying for. That’s easy to do when the sources are plain text, and I can just diff different versions to see what edits I’ve made in the past. I’m not applying for graphics design or marketing positions. A résumé can look nice, but it’s not all about visual presentation and layout—it’s about content first, and the layout is just there to support the content and make it easy to read. Long ago, I made my résumé using professional layout software. Adobe InDesign, actually. I switched to ConTeXt mostly because it’s easier to make content changes. I haven’t used Scribus, but my experience is that making content changes in layout software is often annoying, unless you’re using some really basic templates or you’ve put a lot of work into your workflow.

DicIfTEx 4y ago

As someone who generally enjoys using LaTeX, who spent several years maintaining a LaTeX CV and who switched to Scribus a couple of years ago, this is bang-on. The content–styling separation is very intuitive in Scribus (and, I assume, other DTP tools): define the bounds of your text boxes (and link them if required for your intended document layout), then edit the text in a seperate box and instantly see how it flows into the defined area(s). Of course, most of the jobs I've applied for in recent years have required me to enter my experience section-by-section into a Web form, negating the purpose of the CV entirely. Once or twice I've seen tools that allow you to upload your CV PDF and then attempt to extract as much info from it as possible. It's never gone very well, so it does make me think that LaTeX vs DTP vs Word is a less pertinent question to debate than ‘how can I produce a CV that can best be automatically parsed’. Absent any sort of structured CV data standard, I assume that means using the most widely-used tool to produce it, i.e. Word.