[flagged]

voidUpdate 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's a lot of assumptions about me based on "the important figure should be at the top of the page, not the bottom". Joe Average isn't going to want to read 14 paragraphs before getting to the actual graph the title mentions

▲

Loquebantur 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The point isn't whether it's true about you in particular, it's about the actual effect it has on the general audience.

Improving the design of that article will do absolutely nothing for its public reception.

Voicing reasonable reactions to the salient content actually helps furthering the discussion. Nitpicking does the opposite.

▲

voidUpdate an hour ago | parent [-]

Good design will absolutely improve public reception

▲

Loquebantur 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

It maybe would, if people were to read it in the first place.

But they don't: they go to the comments here first and try to get the gist of reactions, in order to save themselves the time to actually read the piece.

You pretend, it wasn't trivial for people to scroll down to the graph. Such things aren't the issue at all.

The reactions you cause with your comment above are.

	▲	voidUpdate 20 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I doubt my single comment about the design choices of the article is turning people off from seeing what the article is about. I'm stressing that the graph is actually important to see, not saying "the design is bad so you shouldn't read this article". And given people's attention spans these days, I'd imagine reading 14 paragraphs to find the graph the title talks about might be non-trivial
	▲	vitally3643 24 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		People also won't read 14 paragraphs of prose about a graph before you show them the graph

▲

PaulHoule 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you want to to down that road the article reads like AI slop which cooks the planet itself with energy use. Or, alternately, if the message is that important it is all the more important that it be communicated effectively.