> Almost every interviewee has a git(hub/lab) account with code they're written, that should suffice to determine if they can FizzBuzz.No, almost every interviewee does not have public code, and what's more, that should be irrelevant to your process. Your proposal here selects for people who have a lot of free time or few hobbies outside of work (or a combination thereof). It's not selecting for ability. Ideally each candidate should receive the same interview; having public code shouldn't bypass what candidates without public code have to do.
> You could also ask them for a coding sample prior to the interview if they have no public code.
I could, and I'm personally a fan of that. But it has its own problems:
1. The assignment can still be perceived as condescending by prospective candidates. Are their feelings about this less valid than if I asked the question directly on a phone interview? Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable contempt for a mundane task in an interview process?
2. You're still selecting for people who have free time. They either don't currently have a job, or they have free time outside of work to complete your assignment. Unless your assignment takes a trivial amount of time, in which case we're right back where we started.
> The solution is simple, nobody does it because it asks the interviewer to do more than skim the resume before walking into the room. I think this comes from the perception that the interviewee's time is cheap compared to that of the interviewer's.
The solution is emphatically not simple, or it would have been done in the industry already. Many people want it to be solved on both sides of the table. Your perception appears to be that interviewees' time is so valuable it's reasonable for them to be offended by a programming question so far below their (apparently vast) level of ability. You're asserting a hypothesis that interviewers are not respectful of time and saying they can't be bothered to review a resume, but it's fair if an interviewee can't be bothered to answer a simple programming question in an interview? Moreover, people lie or exaggerate on their resumes, which diminishes their absolute utility - like I said, I've seen senior engineers fail FizzBuzz.
Alternatively, both sides can simply acknowledge that there isn't a simple solution and that everyone's time is valuable, then excuse the other for asking questions that are specifically designed to save everyone time. You're free to ask such questions and apply your own filters, too.