Exformation, and Other Geological Phenomena
For webwriters, exformation is a big problem. How much of our text assumes shared knowledge? How much do we need to spell out? And is our exformation the same as our readers'? (39)
Exformation is basically a kind of "inside joke". As I was reading this section, I thought that Kilian was sort of overreacting. While I agree that it's a dumb idea to reference something your friends did last summer on a website about professional football, I don't think this is a huge deal. The only place I see things like this are those irritating websites created by a circle of fourteen year old girls who think that everyone cares about their convoluted copyright infringement role-play universes. Maybe this was more of an issue back when the original was written? The point is, the only place you'll usually find exformation is on personal websites, where the intended audience is all people who know the writer.
Besides, if you take too much of the life out of what you're writing, who wants to read it?
As I was going through I started to wonder if technical terms are included in Kilian's definition of exformation (which sound like geology, by the way). I don't think you're taking too much of a risk by using technical terms, which the writer also seemed to be cautioning against for some reason. If the site is about a certain subject, I'll expect a certain amount of subject-specific jargon, if not only to give the writer some credibility.
Explaining too much is almost as bad as explaining too little--it implies you think your visitors are ignorant. (40)
I don't agree at all. If I'm reading and someone explains something I already know, I can skip over it. I'm mature enough to know that the site in question was probably written to appeal to as many people as possible, and kudos to the writer for recognizing his audience. And who knows? Maybe I'll learn something new.
kthxbai
Exformation is basically a kind of "inside joke". As I was reading this section, I thought that Kilian was sort of overreacting. While I agree that it's a dumb idea to reference something your friends did last summer on a website about professional football, I don't think this is a huge deal. The only place I see things like this are those irritating websites created by a circle of fourteen year old girls who think that everyone cares about their convoluted copyright infringement role-play universes. Maybe this was more of an issue back when the original was written? The point is, the only place you'll usually find exformation is on personal websites, where the intended audience is all people who know the writer.
Besides, if you take too much of the life out of what you're writing, who wants to read it?
As I was going through I started to wonder if technical terms are included in Kilian's definition of exformation (which sound like geology, by the way). I don't think you're taking too much of a risk by using technical terms, which the writer also seemed to be cautioning against for some reason. If the site is about a certain subject, I'll expect a certain amount of subject-specific jargon, if not only to give the writer some credibility.
Explaining too much is almost as bad as explaining too little--it implies you think your visitors are ignorant. (40)
I don't agree at all. If I'm reading and someone explains something I already know, I can skip over it. I'm mature enough to know that the site in question was probably written to appeal to as many people as possible, and kudos to the writer for recognizing his audience. And who knows? Maybe I'll learn something new.
kthxbai
You made some very good points in this blog. I agree that exformation is most commonly used on personal sites where the material is intended for people who know the "inside joke" already.
Writing for a mass audience is difficult. Not everyone is on the same level and the author has to work to balance it out. I agree that the more "mature" or knowledgeable audience members would be able to skim over the information they already know.