Here is my prompt to gemini3:
> Please suggest improvements to Leo's "preface" at https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/preface.html Everything that follows is the response. Looks like I flunked marketing 101: Based on an analysis of the text at the provided URL, the "preface" (titled "A Brief Summary of Leo") exhibits several rhetorical weaknesses that undermine its effectiveness for a technical audience. The current text relies on subjective claims, dated comparisons, and insider jargon ("Leonine way"). A skeptical reader will likely view the broad listing of features (IDE, PIM, Outliner) as a sign of a tool lacking a defined scope, rather than a versatile one. The following improvements address these issues, focusing on precision and verifiable value propositions. 1. Remove the Dated Comparison *Current:* *“Word outlines are very useful. But Leo makes Word look like a clunky toy.”—Joe Orr* *Critique:* Comparing a developer tool to Microsoft Word is a category error. It lowers the ceiling of expectations. Most developers do not use Word for code or serious data organization; they use VS Code, Vim, Emacs, or Obsidian. Acknowledging Word implies the tool is aimed at non-technical office users, which contradicts the later claim that it is a "fully-featured IDE." *Recommendation:* Remove the quote entirely. Start with a direct definition of the tool's primary differentiator: the integration of outlining with codebase logic. 2. Clarify the "Directed Acyclic Graph" (DAG) Claim *Current:* *“Leo's underlying data is a Directed Acyclic Graphs. As a result, Leo organizes data in completely new ways.”* *Critique:* Stating the data structure is a DAG is a factual statement about implementation, not a benefit. The statement "organizes data in completely new ways" is vague marketing fluff. The user needs to know *why* a DAG matters (i.e., zero-cost aliasing/cloning of nodes). *Recommendation:* Replace the implementation detail with the functional consequence. - *Proposed Revision:* "Unlike standard tree-based editors, Leo allows a single node to appear in multiple places simultaneously (clones). Editing a node in one location updates it everywhere, allowing for multidimensional organization of source code." 3. Define "The Leonine Way" or Remove It *Current:* *“Leo's clone find commands enable the Leonine way to refactor programs.”* *Critique:* This is circular terminology. A new user does not know what "Leonine" means. Using proper nouns to describe a methodology often signals an insular community rather than a standard tool. *Recommendation:* Describe the methodology strictly in operational terms. - *Proposed Revision:* "Leo enables refactoring by treating code structure as a manipulatable [sic] outline, allowing you to reorganize large codebases via drag-and-drop operations rather than text cutting and pasting." 4. Address the "Jack-of-All-Trades" Risk *Current:* The list claims Leo is an IDE, an Outliner, a Data Manager, a Scripting Environment, and a study tool. *Critique:* Tools that claim to do everything often trigger skepticism regarding their depth in any single area. A developer will question how a single tool can compete with IntelliJ (IDE) and Obsidian (PIM) simultaneously. *Recommendation:* Hierarchy is needed. Define the tool primarily as one thing (likely a *Literate Programming Editor* or *Scriptable Outliner*) and list the others as secondary capabilities derived from that core. 5. Reframe the "Steep Learning Curve" Warning *Current:* *“You won't learn all about Leo in a day or two... Please ask for help immediately if you get stuck.”* *Critique:* While honest, this frames the complexity as a liability rather than an investment. "Ask for help immediately" suggests the UI is non-intuitive. *Recommendation:* Focus on progressive disclosure. - *Proposed Revision:* "While Leo's advanced scripting features offer depth that takes time to master, the basic outlining features provide immediate utility for navigating complex files." 6. Verify the "100% Pure Python" Claim Assumption: The claim "Written in 100% pure Python" assumes the user values interpretability over performance. Critique: For a modern IDE, "100% Python" may raise concerns about latency and UI responsiveness compared to Rust or C++ based editors (like Zed or VS Code). Recommendation: If performance is a concern, qualify this claim by explaining why it is Python (e.g., "ensuring the entire editor is hackable [sic] and scriptable by the user at runtime"). Summary of Proposed Structural Changes 1. *Headline:* Change from "A Brief Summary" to "Technical Overview". 2. *Lead:* Delete the Word quote. State clearly that Leo is a *scriptable outline editor* for code and data. 3. *Features:* Group features by workflow (e.g., "For Coding," "For Scripting," "For Knowledge Management") rather than a flat list. 4. *Technical differentiation:* explicitly link "Clones" to the DAG structure to explain the mechanism of action. Edward P.S. Here <https://gemini.google.com/share/653d72b46500>is the initial link to this conversation. EKR -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/128b8839-f55a-4922-b8f1-eb6867acecd5n%40googlegroups.com.
