[rfc-i] Acknowledgements and Contributors as non-sections
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
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.
More information about the rfc-interest