Foldouts push a certain piece of cognitive work from the writer/editor to the reader: “You decide how much detail is important. Now make that decision again a few lines later. And again.” If that specific kind of work is unpleasant for the writer, it’s at least as unpleasant to the reader. Moreover, having to make those choices (to expand each foldout or not) interrupts the reader’s attention to the subject matter. Reading good writing is a flow state; constantly making “do you want to know more?” decisions breaks up that flow.
On the other hand, I expect most readers do occasionally read past hyperlinks in a Wikipedia article without feeling the need to consider clicking on all of them. So there is a way to present “do you want to know more?” without interrupting flow — but the “more” has to be something like a separate article or post, not just a paragraph or two.
While reading your comment I realized I’m not exactly sure why conversations seem to be exempt; choices constantly need to be made, which implies huge costs. However, many people find conversations only mildly draining, or even invigorating. There’s probably some evolutionary component?
A different way to describe the foldout format is as a one-sided conversation, but instead of a monologue (the model of normal writing), the reader/listener has one available action, to request clarification on specific points. This obviously isn’t enough to move the format into a less draining conversational domain, but understanding why not might point to ways it could be moved there.
I did mention chatbots in the post and rejected them for not having enough structure, but maybe one could impose additional structure onto a conversation. For example, lectures have structure, and a one-on-one lecture could be stopped at any point to ask for clarification or contest points. Unclear how to extend something like RAG to that point, though, or if it would be helpful; it’s not like most students love listening to lectures.
Hmm! These do seem like leads, but ones that unfortunately seem to require a ton of work to chase down.
Foldouts push a certain piece of cognitive work from the writer/editor to the reader: “You decide how much detail is important. Now make that decision again a few lines later. And again.” If that specific kind of work is unpleasant for the writer, it’s at least as unpleasant to the reader. Moreover, having to make those choices (to expand each foldout or not) interrupts the reader’s attention to the subject matter. Reading good writing is a flow state; constantly making “do you want to know more?” decisions breaks up that flow.
On the other hand, I expect most readers do occasionally read past hyperlinks in a Wikipedia article without feeling the need to consider clicking on all of them. So there is a way to present “do you want to know more?” without interrupting flow — but the “more” has to be something like a separate article or post, not just a paragraph or two.
While reading your comment I realized I’m not exactly sure why conversations seem to be exempt; choices constantly need to be made, which implies huge costs. However, many people find conversations only mildly draining, or even invigorating. There’s probably some evolutionary component?
A different way to describe the foldout format is as a one-sided conversation, but instead of a monologue (the model of normal writing), the reader/listener has one available action, to request clarification on specific points. This obviously isn’t enough to move the format into a less draining conversational domain, but understanding why not might point to ways it could be moved there.
I did mention chatbots in the post and rejected them for not having enough structure, but maybe one could impose additional structure onto a conversation. For example, lectures have structure, and a one-on-one lecture could be stopped at any point to ask for clarification or contest points. Unclear how to extend something like RAG to that point, though, or if it would be helpful; it’s not like most students love listening to lectures.
Hmm! These do seem like leads, but ones that unfortunately seem to require a ton of work to chase down.