Jump to content

Talk:Extendable-output function

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Categories

A reviewer left a request for additional categories (an obvious one is already chosen). Suggestions are welcome. Dimawik (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-technical?

@JayBeeEll: The subject of the article is highly technical by nature. It is hard for me to imagine a reader that is not interested in cryptography and still wants to read this article. Dimawik (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimawik: Lots of people who are interested in cryptography (e.g., students with a generalist CS background half-way through a first cryptography course) won't already be familiar with every single piece of uncontextualized jargon in every corner of the field. A good rule of thumb is to imagine what the typical reader of your article is, and then provide enough context so that a reader one level of specialty lower can understand. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good rule of thumb is to imagine what the typical reader of your article is, and then provide enough context so that a reader one level of specialty lower can understand: I wholeheartedly agree, yet think that I did just that in this article. As an example, I would fully expect a reader of an article on a variation of a cryptographic hash function (CHF) to already know what the said function is. One level down is "does not know what a CHF is but is willing to learn". For the latter reader a link to the article about the CHF is provided. In terms of education, this latter person can be a high school student, as this topic is not a genuinely hard subject like Maxwell's equations in physics, the situation here is along the lines "X is Y, but with an additional property Z. Since X is derived from Y, the properties of Y are inherited. Furthermore, if Y is designed using S, making Y into X is simple." etc.
I do not think it is always desirable to avoid using the specialized terminology, as was highlighted by Robert Sheckley with his Answerer. That said, I would be very happy to improve any particular area of text that is hard to understand. Dimawik (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]