Thanks for the substantial reply - there's a lot to unpick here, but there are some bits I don't understand, so I'll ask here, although I might follow up by email to cover some things in greater depth. However ...

> There is a box on the outside talking about scalars that is part of the line of reasoning for vectors. It probably should be moved. It looks logically out of place.

I'm not sure which box you mean - they appear to be in a logical order to me, so I'm wondering if you see something I'm not seeing, or have somehow been misled by something into making a connection that's not actually there.

> I had substantial math in high school. I am usually the mathiest person in the room in meat space ... I have never before seen the terms vector and scalar for math.

Now that surprises me, and I wonder if it's a difference between the Australian, English (UK), and American curricula. Certainly when I was doing math in Australia vectors were covered in years 10 through 12 (ages 14/15 to 16/17), and now in the UK they're covered at a similar age. I'll have to get in touch with some of my American colleagues to see when vectors are covered in their schools.

> The explanation for what they are is insufficient for my needs ...

A diagram like this is not really the right place to give tutorials on the basics of vectors, although your comment makes me wonder if there is a place for a tutorial targeted at an audience other than those already catered for by the existing on-line material.

> ... and there is no explanation as to why you can't cross the two.

The "cross product" is defined between vectors. That's it, really. I'm not sure what more can be added about that, so I'd welcome suggestions. Maybe I can add that comment in a box somewhere.

Hmm.

> The layout places the word play part awkwardly. It would make more sense and be easier to follow if you grouped the vector (wordplay) and vector (math) explanations together instead of having them each on the far outside of the piece. They should possibly go under a single heading that splits or separate headings that are properly labeled to indicate (vector: math) and (vector: wordplay).

That's useful. It's not quite was I was thinking, but it reinforces the thoughts I had about the groupings and the flow. Thank you.

> Your explanations have a history of assuming a high level of base knowledge while apparently being aimed at a lay audience.

The strong evidence here in the UK is that my explanations are well-targeted and at an appropriate level for the audiences here, so this really might be a difference in the knowledge one can assume from the different school systems.

> And, hey, this seems to be your hobby (or whatever) for whatever reason.

Actually, I make my living doing this, that's why I can say I have strong evidence that the material I produce here in the UK is appropriate for my audiences here in the UK. I have feedback forms, repeat engagements, letters of recommendation, etc.

But having said all that, the fact that you didn't follow it tells me that perhaps I'm not hitting the right level for an American audience, and that's really valuable information.

> So there's some feedback for you.

Again, thank you.