3 ms·
The way they rephrased also simply omitted detail, which doesn't seem like a fair comparison. I'd much rather see an example where no detail is lost but would s
by d0gbread 5y ago
The way they rephrased also simply omitted detail, which doesn't seem like a fair comparison. I'd much rather see an example where no detail is lost but would still have wider comprehension. Literally dumbing it down by stripping detail doesn't seem like a clear best practice.
- macintux 5y agoIt’s impossible to express the same content using simpler words without making the text much longer, which defeats the purpose of making it easier to read. The more precise a term is, the more it expresses without added verbiage, but it’s also less likely to be widely understood.
- nebari 5y agoThis rather mixes simpler/more difficult and shorter/longer as equivalent - even interchangeable - aspects of writing. But these are not transitive: shorter is not simpler, nor is simpler (i.e., more understandable) necessarily shorter; similarly, a longer piece isn't more difficult simply by its length. Writing is hard; writing clearly - more understandably - is harder yet. Writing precisely, which would link some concepts of length/wordiness directly with understandability and clarity, is the hardest of all. "If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter" - Blaise Pascal