Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Maybe off topic, but I take a lot of online courses (Pluralsight being the majority) and I find that this standard approach of “intro”, “content”, “summary” doesn’t add much for me.

It might just be a personal thing but it’s never felt useful and just serves to lower the signal to noise ratio. I always skip the intro and summary sections. I find the same with blog posts that religiously follow this structure.

Just tell me the actual information!

It could be a very subjective thing. I have a short attention span and will generally crank up the speed of these video courses too. I just want to quickly and efficiently extract the raw value without the fluff.

I don’t find it helps comprehension and retention. (For me, the only thing that does is immediately putting into practice what you learn).



The "intro / content / summary" structure is primarily useful in situations where:

1. The content is extensive, or

2. The information is being presented in real time without the opportunity for review.

Courses often use this structure because the primary audience are the students in the classroom, which fits criterion 2.

Written content roughly the length of a book chapter often follows this structure because they fit criterion 1. There's enough content that the intro and summary contribute non-trivial insights.

Short blog posts on trivial ideas use this format because of either SEO or cargo culting, I assume.


Yes, very good insights.

Online learning content seems to unnecessarily and blindly follow this structure even when a lot of the time neither 1 or 2 apply. Perhaps because face-to-face courses would traditionally do the same.

The ability to rewind, slow down, rewatch etc. for online content removes a lot of the need for extensive intros and summaries. But there are certain scenarios where it's still a valid structure.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: