Formatting question
-
I'm writing an article at the moment which is attempting to explain some advanced concepts in a more beginner/intermediate way then they are usually presented. As such, I'm finding that I have to dumb down some of the explanations to the point of slight inaccuracy - unfortunately many of the definitions within the subject area are recursive so without a slightly inaccurate definition which is later explained better it's hard to write something a lay-person would understand. At the moment, I'm finding that in order to not appear just plain wrong, I'm having to justify my position with brackets. For example: "Slightly wrong statement (I know this is slightly wrong, but trust me for now and I'll explain later.) Correct point that leads on from previous statement." Since the explanation of why the point is wrong is helpful to people already familiar with the subject matter, but not helpful for beginners I was hoping there would be a nice way of doing it like I have seen in tech books, something like: " Slightly wrong statement. Correct point that leads on from previous statement.
Note:I know this is slightly wrong, but trust me for now and I'll explain later.
" Obviously I don't actually want to use either tables or code blocks - can somebody suggest a neat alternative for formatting this? Thanks, Chris
-
I'm writing an article at the moment which is attempting to explain some advanced concepts in a more beginner/intermediate way then they are usually presented. As such, I'm finding that I have to dumb down some of the explanations to the point of slight inaccuracy - unfortunately many of the definitions within the subject area are recursive so without a slightly inaccurate definition which is later explained better it's hard to write something a lay-person would understand. At the moment, I'm finding that in order to not appear just plain wrong, I'm having to justify my position with brackets. For example: "Slightly wrong statement (I know this is slightly wrong, but trust me for now and I'll explain later.) Correct point that leads on from previous statement." Since the explanation of why the point is wrong is helpful to people already familiar with the subject matter, but not helpful for beginners I was hoping there would be a nice way of doing it like I have seen in tech books, something like: " Slightly wrong statement. Correct point that leads on from previous statement.
Note:I know this is slightly wrong, but trust me for now and I'll explain later.
" Obviously I don't actually want to use either tables or code blocks - can somebody suggest a neat alternative for formatting this? Thanks, Chris
I would change this around and have a link to the corrected version later in the document. Possibly mark this in a note that stands out like: This definition is a simplification. As we cover more detail, you'll find that we revise this. If you want to see the full detail, you can find it here.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
I would change this around and have a link to the corrected version later in the document. Possibly mark this in a note that stands out like: This definition is a simplification. As we cover more detail, you'll find that we revise this. If you want to see the full detail, you can find it here.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Thanks - I like that idea. There are some places I'm not sure it will flow right still, but that certainly makes it tidier. I like the idea that they can jump to the fuller definition - very good as it will make it more readable for people who already know about it!