Live data from Hacker News

Patterns in Confusing Explanations

jvns.ca

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#71
post #61

My long-standing annoyance with software documentation is when people don't see that tutorials and reference are different things. They may have tutorials as the only documentation available ( ahem Ansible cough ), or reference as the only documentation. But in fact, the use-cases for those two are different, so effectively they have different audiences. I don't want to learn a language from a dictionary, and I don't…

Swagger ‘documentation’.

I understand every programmer I talk to loves this auto generated ‘documentation’ (prolly for selfish reasons). For me the tautological definitions, and lack of overview (which resources you need to form basic reporting—my introduction was swagger api for a Platform POS) undermine the description as ‘documentation’. I’m not complaining about what Swagger does, but about the cavalier way other programmers and vendor managers sound all chipper about their (un-)helpful ‘documentation’.

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#72
post #63

I write technical explanations for a living and are often baffled how bad some people write. I don't even mean non-native speakers, but people from the UK/US. People tend to leave out crucial information all the time and can't focus on what they try to explain. As if they don't read their texts after they've written them.

"All the time", got any examples?

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#74
post #61

My long-standing annoyance with software documentation is when people don't see that tutorials and reference are different things. They may have tutorials as the only documentation available ( ahem Ansible cough ), or reference as the only documentation. But in fact, the use-cases for those two are different, so effectively they have different audiences. I don't want to learn a language from a dictionary, and I don't…

This [0] helpful resource distinguishes between tutorials, reference material, how-to guides, and explanations.

[0] https://documentation.divio.com

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#76

I like the content! But I find that the use of exclamation points detracts from it! Maybe I am biased?! Because, for instance, I also avoid emoticons, and for the same reason! Which is: it can make the prose seem goofy and patronizing! But just in case you need exclamation points in order to hear what I write, I have used them in the comment!

here is one useful article - https://computools.com/business-applications-of-cloud-comput... I advise you to read

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#77
post #48

One tip I picked up a while back is to be aware of the number of `it`s and other pronouns used. I realized that when my explanation were getting lengthy, I was tempted to avoid duplication by referring to previously mentioned nouns as `it`s, `they`s etc. This practice led to some very confusing sentences, where each `it` meant a different thing. My explanations got noticeably clearer once I started replacing the pron…

I agree that overuse of "it" is very confusing and in both the written word and in speech. Overuse of "it" is often a sign that the writer or speaker is not fully clear on the topic in their own mind.

On the other hand, "under use" of "it" can also lend friction to understanding as "under use" of "it" destroys briefness. Cognitive load increases as we wade through "under use" of "it" again and again.

A little bit of it is good. Too much of it is bad.

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#78
post #48

One tip I picked up a while back is to be aware of the number of `it`s and other pronouns used. I realized that when my explanation were getting lengthy, I was tempted to avoid duplication by referring to previously mentioned nouns as `it`s, `they`s etc. This practice led to some very confusing sentences, where each `it` meant a different thing. My explanations got noticeably clearer once I started replacing the pron…

On the topic of low-level tips: IMO it helps to always try to read one's writing as if speaking it out loud. If the text doesn't flow well when spoken, then it's not good. Like, long-winded parentheses in the middle of a sentence are not good. Sure, the text won't look like those highbrow publications where you flex your mnemonic palaces just to remember what the sentence was about when it started—but at least actual people may derive utility from the result.

For those who don't normally ‘subvocalize’ in their mind when reading, I guess actual reading aloud to themselves is an option.

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#79
post #61

My long-standing annoyance with software documentation is when people don't see that tutorials and reference are different things. They may have tutorials as the only documentation available ( ahem Ansible cough ), or reference as the only documentation. But in fact, the use-cases for those two are different, so effectively they have different audiences. I don't want to learn a language from a dictionary, and I don't…

This [0] helpful resource distinguishes between tutorials, reference material, how-to guides, and explanations. [0] https://documentation.divio.com

Indeed, that was the first time I've seen someone clearly voice more-or-less the same view, when the link previously appeared here on HN.

Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations

#80
post #72
post #63

I write technical explanations for a living and are often baffled how bad some people write. I don't even mean non-native speakers, but people from the UK/US. People tend to leave out crucial information all the time and can't focus on what they try to explain. As if they don't read their texts after they've written them.

"All the time", got any examples?

Just yesterday I read some guides to instrument my IaC with a monitoring service. Their lib requires to call a flush function, but this wasn't mentioned in the guides.

Somewhere at the end of the API ref, after a list of deprecations, they mentioned the flush function.

Wouldn't have expected such important info buried that deep.

Post reply on HN