![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I wish it were easier for me to publish a paper in a medium that invited readers to let me know whenever they read a statement that they have trouble with, e.g. by leaving a flag like:
* "I don't see how this follows!"
* "what does this mean?"
...without fear of seeming lazy or stupid.
or by:
* commenting in-line
Current media (PDF, PS, DOC, etc. and *even* wikis) make the above process hard.
How often do you email the author of a paper about small points, unclear details, typos? Why not more often?
A nice automatic way to do this would be to track the readers' eye-movements and facial expressions, possibly through a webcam. That way, authors could also assess which parts readers find interesting, surprising, and how much they agree. It can be frustrating for me when I write a blog entry about an important point, and people only make comments on the incidental details. This is a sign that they either didn't understand the main point, or that they don't find it interesting. I would like to know which of the above is the case.
* "I don't see how this follows!"
* "what does this mean?"
...without fear of seeming lazy or stupid.
or by:
* commenting in-line
Current media (PDF, PS, DOC, etc. and *even* wikis) make the above process hard.
How often do you email the author of a paper about small points, unclear details, typos? Why not more often?
A nice automatic way to do this would be to track the readers' eye-movements and facial expressions, possibly through a webcam. That way, authors could also assess which parts readers find interesting, surprising, and how much they agree. It can be frustrating for me when I write a blog entry about an important point, and people only make comments on the incidental details. This is a sign that they either didn't understand the main point, or that they don't find it interesting. I would like to know which of the above is the case.