Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "traits" feature of Rust's type system provides a lot of nice polymorphism and general ergonomics, but one consequence of its existence is that you see a lot of trait-related noise in the docs and it's maybe emphasized more than it should be by the styling. If you know Rust, it's pretty easy to cut through it if you know what you're looking for, and sometimes it's actually useful.
One thing I've noticed is that the answer to "how do I use this library?" is often hidden away in a sub-page about one of the traits it defines. Many libraries are made of boring top-level code and then interesting trait implementations. Structuring the documentation like the code doesn't work out very well in that case.
I expect that the interface works this way in an attempt to avoid parsing format strings at run time ("zero cost abstractions" and all that), and that's great, but the lack of documentation made it pretty miserable to use, and I would classify my Rust skills as "intermediate". I expect a beginner would have just given up (and taken to HN to complain about the learning curve).