Use "self-contained" caption. It's annoying to dig into the texts and match them to the figures. Ain't nobody got time for that! ⌚️
Also, add a figure "caption title" (in bold fonts). It allows readers to navigate through figures quickly.
Sharing one idea I found useful for paper writing:
Do NOT ask people to solve correspondence problems.
Some Dos and Don'ts examples below:
*Figures*: Don't ask people to match (a), (b), (c) ... with the descriptions in the figure caption.
Use "self-contained" caption. It's annoying to dig into the texts and match them to the figures. Ain't nobody got time for that! ⌚️
Also, add a figure "caption title" (in bold fonts). It allows readers to navigate through figures quickly.
Give specific, meaningful names to your math notations. For example, the readers won't need to go back and forth to figure what each term means.
I found that many of my students love to use "which" in their sentences. I hate it ... because I often cannot figure out what exactly "which" refers to. Break it down into simple sentences and spell out what that subject of the sentence is.
It's hard to parse which corresponds to which in the sentence that ends with "respectively" (have to solve a long-range correspondence problem). Break them them so that one sentence talks about one thing.
People like to use many acronyms for their methods. It may be hard for readers to memorize/match which method/dataset/metric you are referring to. Adding citations is an easy way to fix this.
When using notations in the sentences, mention their "names" as well. The readers won't need to flip through your papers to look up what these notations mean.
I view the overview figure in a paper a centralized hub that connects all the important equations, notations, and sections in one place. This makes it easy for people to understand how everything fits together.
Factorize the variants/attributes of different methods so that it becomes clear to compare one with another.
Decompose your big table so that each table conveys exactly one thing. This avoids people from having to compare results from distant rows. Having multiple smaller tables gets the point across easier. (Don't worry about the redundancy.)
Don't ask readers to figure out the grouping (b-c) and (d-e) in the caption when you explicitly group them.
How to create underbracket? Ex:
$\underbracket[1pt][2.0mm]{\hspace{\FIGWIDTH}}_%
{\substack{\vspace{-2.0mm}\\
\colorbox{white}{(a) Input}}}$
When applicable, use repetitive grammatical elements in your sentence. It helps the readers to easily parse the parallel concepts you want to convey.
More from All
You May Also Like
So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.
The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.
This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.
The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."
This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
If everyone was holding bitcoin on the old x86 in their parents basement, we would be finding a price bottom. The problem is the risk is all pooled at a few brokerages and a network of rotten exchanges with counter party risk that makes AIG circa 2008 look like a good credit.
— Greg Wester (@gwestr) November 25, 2018
The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.
This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.
The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."
This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
