|
Disclaimer: I'm discarding badly written text and badly written code here 
Although I find easiest to read formatted text with occasional images, most of the times it's much easiest to understand pure code 
For me, the main difference is the lack of ambiguity that code provides. Plain text is much more prone to misinterpretation interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
Because it greatly depends on the media you're reading on and the contents of the document itself and nature of what you want to know and how quickly you want to know it.
eg. if you have a large dataset and you want to know the trend of the data (eg stock data, marketing data, ...) a graph is better than a list of numbers. However if you want to delve into the details of a certain period, you might want to see the raw data.
A manual for a program needs images to show the new user where on the screen the feature can be found. A paper explaining the evolution of mice during the last millennium does not necessarily need pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
Egyptian hieroglyphs on papyrus. It's more readable than QA and also more readable than a lot of code I've seen.
And of course the formatting doesn't matter when the document is about elephanting CListCtrl or bacon and has pictures of Salma Hayek. Substance over form.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that covered by "Image based or infographic style documents (A picture is worth 1K words...)"
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: pictures of Salma Hayek. Substance over form.
Somethings apparently missing in your flow of thoughts here.
In this context her form is substantial.
|
|
|
|
|
What was I thinking?  
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
