←back to thread

210 points scapecast | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.288s | source
Show context
gjejcjekdnfnwja ◴[] No.45058702[source]
As an engineer, that slide looks completely reasonable to me. Its purpose was to communicate technical info, which it did adequately. Keep in mind that the subject matter is highly technical, given that we're literally talking about the Space Shuttle, and more than a high school level of reading comprehension is heavily implied. If the NASA personnel weren't competent enough to review technical data without a pithy summary, that's on them.
replies(12): >>45058746 #>>45058884 #>>45058926 #>>45058940 #>>45058950 #>>45058984 #>>45059072 #>>45059150 #>>45059232 #>>45061181 #>>45061650 #>>45069334 #
cntainer ◴[] No.45058884[source]
I can't remember the last time I saw a slide as mangled as the one in the article. It hurts my brain just reading it.

But you are right, most engineers would consider that reasonable, while complaining about the "muggles" that just don't get it.

As a Software Architect, one of my main responsibilities has been to take information presented like above and turn it into something that non-technical people can digest.

Being able to express a complex concept in simple terms is an invaluable skill.

replies(4): >>45058917 #>>45058962 #>>45059098 #>>45061237 #
poulpy123 ◴[] No.45061237[source]
Actually most engineers would complain about the slides shown here. The issue is not the technicality or depth of the content but on the way it is presented and shown. I'm
replies(1): >>45062079 #
1. cntainer ◴[] No.45062079[source]
it depends, I noticed that many engineers will input information on a slide following their thought process closely, they rarely think about the audience's perspective, especially if the audience is less technical or not familiar with the domain.