But all of those answers can be followed up by more detailed questions with specifics. If you are a company that values code quality, how do you back up that value? Do you have coding standards, do you do code reviews and so on. Either way, this provides a jumping off point for further discussion. If the interviewer cannot provide information about why working for them would satisfy those wants, then that company might not be a fit for you.
TBH my criticism was mostly related to the original article and the suggested kind of interviewing, from my experience they don't go in to details, it's a jumping off in to more useless buzzword questions and pseudo psychoanalysis (does money matter to you, what are your goals, what are your motivations, etc.) without touching on the important stuff (like can you code, did you work as a part of a team environment, what did you accomplish) I'm a fan of "describe a project you were involved in and feel is representative of your skill" as a jumping off point.
