Comment by boneitis

6 years ago

I'm of the opinion that there is much overlap between them. If I can have that (the opinion that is, not the concession on your part), then I accept.

4 comments

boneitis

Reply
ablekh  6 years ago

I think that you and I are talking about different "readabilities". Yours implies a capability to effectively convey conceptual meaning, whereas mine (in this context) implies UX-focused - that is, purely visual - readability of the text at hand. I hope that this clarifies the source of our presumably different opinions.

  • boneitis  6 years ago

    I had considered both, as I think they considerably overlap (e: in this case, at least). In fact, if you want to want to completely isolate the two, I had mainly considered the UX-focused and visual aspect.

    Contending over the ultimate conveyance of meaning in and of itself would have had me arguing for what we both already agree on.

    Come onnnnn. It's not that bad with the grammar/punctuation, capitalization of acronyms and proper nouns, backtick highlights, and codeblocks.

    • ablekh  6 years ago

      If you are OK with a text being not that bad, hmm ... it is your choice. Readability is an extremely important UX concept, not to mention the accessibility in this case. For the current version of the text, people with less than great eyesight have to rely only on the (tiny) trailing dot to visually distinguish between sentences. Having proper capitalization within the context would enormously improve the text's accessibility.

      As for "grammar/punctuation, capitalization of acronyms and proper nouns, backtick highlights, and codeblocks", well ... if the text would lack that, it would have been a completely unreadable wall of text.

      1 reply →