Timeline for How do you describe something that has "just enough" details?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2014 at 17:10 | comment | added | i-CONICA | I agree. I think my answer answers the original question, but when the actual context came into it, it's a bit off... But for future people who find this, I think they're good words. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 17:08 | comment | added | ermanen | I don't think you can use these words for your example though. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 16:14 | vote | accept | Tymric | ||
| Jul 11, 2014 at 14:58 | comment | added | bib | +1 But a cite to a reference and a quoted definition would be better. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 13:52 | comment | added | Tymric | In my case, "optimal" may be relative to the application. I think I'm going to describe it as "suffciently-detailed", but it was worth checking for other possibilities. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 13:42 | comment | added | i-CONICA | I've just read your edit, and as a software developer myself, I get what you mean. :) You might want to look at words like "optimal", to mean it's been optimised for a purpose, in that it's as clean and neat as it can be. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 13:40 | comment | added | i-CONICA | Hmm, not really. It's really only to describe communication, written or verbal. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 12:58 | comment | added | Tymric | "succinct" portrays the description I'm looking for, but is it suitable to describe something that's not put in words? "A succinct sculpture", for example. | |
| Jul 11, 2014 at 12:49 | history | answered | i-CONICA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |