1. The message is secondary to the medium.
2. The communication requires numerous unnecessary click throughs to obtain the relevant information.
3. The division of the information into various panels and mediums does not enhance the communication, rather the messages are divided in a way that doesn't match a hierarchal introduction of detail. It often serves no purpose whatsoever.
Also this is not some personal attack on identity "who she wants to be", it's a commentary on poor communication - don't attempt to equate the two, it's incredibly poor taste, and flame baiting.
> The message is secondary to the medium.
What if the message was in a language that you don't understand? Would that make it poor communication, or is it rather poor listening.
The pressure to be average, normal, and conformist is what neurodiverse individuals struggle with daily - especially in professional and educational settings. "Poor communication skills" are very much a personal attack - at least from my perspective as an ND individual. This is Lina's personal time and she can communicate how she pleases.
Find where I infer anything about the author in my comment. It's not present, you've invented this narrative as a strawman argument.
You are presenting something inappropriate and frankly revolting for the furtherance of merely disagreeing.
Also just so we are clear: I'm not going to engage you in discussing a person's identity. Continually referring to the author's identity is deeply offensive.
yes it is. see:
> ... all of the gimmick and gloss in the presentation and accompanying youtube video is ...
I find that disgusting.
i am unfazed
The format is indeed relevant.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Internet threads have a strong tendency to get stuck on annoyances that aren't pertinent to the actual topic. It's a bit like a branch getting snagged at the side of a creek: all sorts of detritus accumulates around the branch, clogging the flow. This isn't just about comments—it's at least as much about upvotes—such subthreads invariably attract a lot of those. (To disgress a bit: I think that's because upvotes are often driven by familiarity, and the annoyances we're talking about are quite familiar.)
On HN, we don't have any rule against going off topic per se, because sometimes offtopic tangents are fun and interesting—usually when they're unpredictable, i.e. when they're about something specific that doesn't get talked about much, or maybe has never been talked about.
But presentation errors, usability errors, and so on, are the opposite of this: they're predictable because they happen a lot and the patterns tend to repeat, and also because they're annoying and people tend to express annoyance in the same ways over and over. This becomes repetitive and repetition is the enemy of curiosity [1], so it actually follows from HN's Prime Directive [2] that we should try to avoid this.
The other thing to understand about that guideline is that it's not denying the correctness of your annoyance! Of course you're right that formatting, presentation, usability, design, etc., are important. The issue is that discussions tend to get clogged by comments about these things, precisely because they are annoying. I'm as annoyed by them as anyone and I think most of us are.
Our challenge as a community is to experience those annoyances and process them however we process them but not to complain about them in the comments—rather to stay on topic (or at least on something unpredictable), not because crappy websites or whatever deserve better, but because we as a community deserve better—interesting conversations about interesting things to read.
(I should add that when I say "crappy websites" I'm not talking about the OP - I didn't spend more than a couple seconds looking at it and didn't personally experience annoyance. I just mean we all have our own set of triggers and they work more or less the same way in everyone.)
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
The content may be excellent. The packaging utterly frustrates accessing that, and flouts all standard conventions of design. The author took a risk. The author lost.
It's the equivalent of a lot of make-up applied poorly.
It would be clearer to simply communicate concisely.