What Is the Relationship Between Descriptions and the Context?
As we have already discussed, any description is understood based on the context.
Hmm, your usage of the terms, description and context, is unclear to me. By 'description' do you mean a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, the whole of a document, or what?
Ah, generally speaking, a description can be any of them. In fact, that's the matter of description of what we are talking about. The whole of the document is a description of the whole of the subject of the document, while a sentence is a description of an aspect of the subject of the document.
So, when your document is about the history of an empire, a sentence may be a description of the birth of the second emperor, which is an aspect of the history of the empire.
Yes.
I understand that, but what should I imagine when you state "any description is understood based on the context"?
I think that that statement holds true whether the description is a sentence or the whole of the document, but I meant, rather, a sentence.
Rather?
I mean, it doesn't particularly have to be a sentence, but can be a chart, a picture, or even a group of sentences. It's important that you imagine a document that consists of multiple description parts, and I meant a description part by 'description'.
So, the document consists of multiple description parts, and any description part is understood based on the context at the point of the description part.
Yes. It's important to be aware that the context at a point is different from the context at another point: each context belong to its own point.
In your usage, does the same context change its state over the progress of the document, or are there different contexts at various points of the document?
Well, I want to say that a single context changes its state over the progress of the document, for in my theory, the continuity of the transformation of the context is important. I mean, contexts at points don't exist independently with each other. It's beneficial for us to image that we nurture the context gradually.
Hmm . . .
A description part stands on the context and transforms the context a bit; the next description part stands on the changed context and transforms the context a bit; and so on.
So it's important that we don't make any misstep in the process.
Writing a Document Is to Continuously Transform the Context from the Initial Context to the Target Context
In fact, I recognize writing a document as a process in which we transform the context continuously from the initial context to the target context.
Is the initial context the prerequisite knowledge?
Yes. As we can't, usually, begin from zero, we specify the prerequisite knowledge, which constitutes the initial context.
And is the target context the understanding that we pledge that the supposed readers can get by reading the document?
Yes. The readers have to be led to reach the target context, which is our obligation. In fact, if we transformed the context from the initial context to the target context in a way that each description part could be understood unambiguously, that goal should have been accomplished. It can't be otherwise.
I agree that it can't be otherwise.
It's Quite Difficult to Perfectly Execute the Process, but . . .
Some documents I see are ones written as the writers, not the readers, can understand them.
Aren't they diaries?
Hmm, . . . are they? I'm talking about documents of some open source products, for example.
Documents written as only the writers can understand are diaries or personal memoranda, I guess.
Well, I thought, those documents were meant for people who want to use those products to read.
Aren't intended readers specified?
People who want to use those products seem to be encouraged to read those documents. However, as the prerequisite knowledge isn't specified, we can't know whether we are supposed readers or not or what we lack in order to understand those documents.
Hmm, as far as the prerequisite knowledge isn't specified, there is no means for us to judge them.
At least, in many cases, the document begins as though people who are new to the product are supposed to read it, for a rudimentary introduction of the product is made there.
An introduction of what the product is?
Yes. If people who are new to the product aren't supposed to read it, what is the introduction for?
Then, probably, it is meant for people who are new to the product.
However, as I read the next part, it is obviously something someone who needs the introduction can't understand!
How is it obvious?
Terms that are special to the product are used without any explanation. How am I supposed to know what those terms mean?
Hmm, I wonder what we are supposed to do. Aren't they explained anywhere?
Actually, in some cases, they are explained somewhere afterward although in the other cases they are never explained.
Ah, you can't read such a document sequentially. We can't understand a part without understanding succeeding parts.
It takes much time to understand such a document. . . . In principle, in technical documents, we have to understand things sequentially from the beginning because parts are based on the understandings of the preceding parts.
As you have to understand mathematics sequentially from the first grade level.
So, I try to carefully understand things from the beginning, but those documents don't allow that!
Certainly, it takes much time to understand such a document. We have to read it many times, and things begin to fit in their places gradually.
It's much waste of time for many users, and some other people just throw away the document, giving up in not understanding beginning parts.
Well, as the writer wrote the document gratis, you can't blame anyone. In many cases, they don't put in much time or effort in documentation.
Certainly, . . . I can't, but I think, it's a pity that many users have to waste their time in order to use the excellent product, because of the poor document. If a little more time and effort had been spent on the documentation by the writer, much more time and effort would have been saved by many readers.
I agree that it's a pity.
Apparently, those documents aren't written following the process of continuously transforming the context from the initial context to the target context. I understand that it's quite difficult to perfectly execute the process, but honestly, I see some documents in which I can't see any trace of trying to do so.
As the writer has the target context from the beginning in his or her head, he or she tends to describe things based on the target context from the beginning. He or she can understand the document all right, but you, who don't have the target context, can't.
I'm reading it because I don't have the target context!
After all, unless we write documents following the right process, they tend to be diary-like documents. They aren't documents that lead readers to understandings.
