|
There's two different moments where I'm reading articles; first, there's just staying up-to-date, reading about new and interesting things. For these I prefer not too long articles with some pictures as a short introduction into a framework or idea.
Other moments I'm implementing something and get stuck. In that case I don't care about the length, I care more about the code-examples and the headlines. Any (sub)title will indicate whether or not this is similar to what I'm trying. Depending on the situation and severity, the article moves to the second monitor, or is printed entirely.
120 pages is more in the realm of "book" than it is an "article". I seriously would not mind seeing a new category called "books", especially if I could PDF it onto the e-reader.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I usually prefer one long article.
But 120 pages seems to be quite large. If the article can be split into self-contained sections I would place them on their own pages.
Links to the previous and next page on top and bottom are a must for me. A link section to all pages should be on top of the first page and optionally on the other pages.
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it this way... when reading a technical document, do you prefer to read it on the screen or do you print it?
Does the number of pages affect your decision?
Now, treat an article the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, #2 should always be the case as it makes for easier readability.
I also recommend breaking up the article into separate articles since you say it's more than 120 pages in length.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below is an example from Bloomberg.com (Bloomberg Business mag) that may help you. It is also an interesting angle on what code is and what devs do.
The points here are:
1. this is a long article
2. it is a very well-written article.
3. I was interested in the article but the length still made it extremely overwhelming.
4. the author uses all kinds of interactive techniques in the article and it still feels overwhelming.
5. the author is a professional writer and the length is still almost like a blunt weapon on the brain
Paul Ford: What Is Code? | Bloomberg[^]
So, my answer, -- even though I break it myself -- is break it up into parts.
Great question, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
If you've already written the article, and don't feel like breaking it up into a series of smaller articles, you could add a table-of-contents at the top, which allows the user to click a link to take them to the various chapters. At each chapter, you can also add a "Back to top" link that lets them return directly to the TOC again.
However, the less observant retard reader won't notice these features, and will still dog on you for writing such a long article. It seems people's attention spans are getting shorter every day, and just "wants da codez".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
What about
5) CodeProject provides a mechanism whereby authors can specify page breaks which allows readers to view it in one piece or page-by-page.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Oooohhh, I like that one.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you do that, please have a way to have distinct URLs per page. So you can link to a specific page from an external site.
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: CodeProject provides a mechanism whereby authors can specify page breaks which allows readers to view it in one piece or page-by-page.
That would be cool. Plus an "e-book" section.
|
|
|
|
|
#2
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Consider releasing it as a book
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Consider releasing it as a book
I've contacted SyncFusion.
|
|
|
|
|
I only look at the photos...
(reverse playboy reference here).
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: I only look at the photos...
That's how I used to read Scientific American. The articles in Hefner's mag were much better.
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't matter as long as it's short.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Doesn't matter as long as it's short.
Sorry, can't be done.
|
|
|
|
|
If there are logical parts, break them apart, otherwise I prefer them in one piece.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd prefer one long article, but if it is 120 pages, surely there are different aspects that can be split off into different articles. If split up, each article should be a standalone issue that is complete. I don't want to read (or print (?!)) multiple things for one thought process.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
Is it long because of actual comment or is it repetitive? The latter being the biggest sin of anyone thinking like a PhD or a "published" writer (paid by the word and all that.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: Is it long because of actual comment or is it repetitive?
Content. Besides covering the spec and its complexities, contradictions, and ambiguities, it covers implementation, unit tests, and a demo, which in itself requires a lightweight server implementation.
But critique for yourself.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I skimmed the article (the subject matter doesn't interest me); I say it definitely should be split into a series of at least two, if not three, articles.
|
|
|
|