[rfc-i] Acknowledgements and Contributors as non-sections

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Thu Mar 27 11:37:45 PDT 2014


On 3/27/2014 11:19 AM, SM wrote:
> At 13:36 25-03-2014, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> I agree with Martin's email, that moving this towards the end, rather
>> than somewhere in the midst of the text, actually adds to the prominence
>> of the information.  It does not diminish it.
>
> Some people do not read up to the end of a RFC.  There is an author who
> prefers to have Acknowledgements at the beginning.  It's better to leave
> this question to author discretion.


Some people don't read more than the introduction, or more than the 
abstract or more than...

In the psychology of perception the two prime positions in a sequence 
are the beginning and the end.  (Often referenced as primary and recency.)

By this metric, the very end is far better than anywhere else within the 
document.  In search terms, the end is also easier to access by the 
reader, since they can 'jump' directly to the end, rather than having to 
search for the section.

My own preference is to have Appendices actually be at the end, with 
these other sections being before Appendices and after the main document 
content.  Having appendices be followed by other sections just seems odd 
to me.

In any event, I think the placement should be regularized and /not/ left 
to author choice.  Having these sorts of things be consistent helps readers.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list