So, that was a bummer

Re:So, that was a bummer by harryh on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:26PM (#1762575)

Interesting. Thx very much fo the feedback. I'm sure you understand it's a hard balance to strike between technical detail and ease of understanding. Will strive to make things a bit more on the "ease of understanding" side next time.

Also considering starting a separate engineering blog where it would probably be appropriate to go into more detail for those that are interested.

-harryh

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:So, that was a bummer by lemming on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @07:58AM (#1763545)

For what it's worth, I liked the original much better than the proposed replacement. People aren't idiots, if you give them a good explanation they appreciate it even if they don't fully understand all the details or implications. Think of it like going to the doctor - if I have something wrong with me, I want my doctor to explain it to me in a way I can understand, not just tell me that I have something generic wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:So, that was a bummer by JabavuAdams on Wednesday October 06, 2010 @09:55AM (#1763915)

Maybe you don't need to find a balance. Provide a "more (technical) info" link after the general-user description.

[ Parent | on HN ]