- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:43:13 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: shelby@coolpage.com, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
On 22/10/2010 14:43, Shelby Moore wrote: > I also in general find the CSS specs to be very hard to understand > quickly, because there are no diagrams in the introductory sections, e.g. > Section 2. The specs introductions contain many new technical terms which > I can't see in my head quickly. I find words very difficult to parse. I > parse pictures much faster, and actually this is proven to be true for > most people. I fully agree that there should be more diagrams in CSS specs in general (provided that the diagrams are well thought out and are not used to define behaviour but merely to illustrate it). However, technical specifications require formal language, and it's not a necessary requirement that they be quick to assimilate. (As with academic papers, it takes expertise and experience to be able to process them rapidly.) However, it /is/ a necessary requirement that they be accurate and comprehensively deal with the topic at hand, and that the necessary definitions, axioms and conceptual underpinnings be presented. Often the CSS specs are difficult to understand because of failure to adhere to that latter point. That's not to say that specs shouldn't be reader-friendly. But it takes significant extra skill and time to make a spec reader-friendly whilst preserving the accuracy, and so unfortunately it often seems not to be a priority. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 17:44:16 UTC