Post History

Personal opinion, not speaking for the team:

There is a tension between being accessible to all, on the one hand, and assuming a baseline of knowledge in a site's topic.  On a software-development site no one would expect you to explain what object-oriented programming is if you asked a question about inheritance.  If you asked a question about configuring Eclipse no one would expect you to explain what Eclipse or an IDE is.  At the other extreme, if you asked a question about implementing an obscure algorithm, people might expect you to link to or otherwise explain it.  On an electrical-engineering site you shouldn't have to explain what voltage is, but might need to explain what an RMS detector is or spell it out.  On a home-improvement site I don't think anybody would expect you to explain what a band saw or galvanized nails are, but for a question that depends on an obscure building code, people would probably expect some details.

I participated in another community in the past that was prone to jargon, and the convention we arrived at was: if the term will be understood by anybody who would be interested in the question, then it's ok, and otherwise find a way to add some explanation or context.  We sometimes had expert-level questions on obscure edge cases that required precise technical terms where, to a beginner, those terms were the least of the barriers -- if you didn't have the background knowledge in that topic to begin with, you weren't going to understand the question no matter how carefully the technical terms were explained.  Meanwhile, if those explanations had been required every time, some of those questions wouldn't have been asked at all.

All of this is incredibly subjective.  We don't have lists of things that are basic knowledge and things that require explanation.  I didn't know what OSB was when I read a question about it, but the title of the question referred to "engineered wood" (and there was a tag), so I was able to understand the question.  If there were something specific, in the question's context, about *this particular type* of engineered wood compared to other types, that would be something that would benefit from clarification.  If OSB is the only, or main, type of engineered wood used for (in this case) siding, then I don't think it requires more detail.

But if someone asks for more information, it's worth seeing if there's a way to provide it without it being burdensome.  Sometimes it's worth editing in a few more words; other times replying to the comment might be enough to help the newcomer with a term most community members will already know. It's a judgement call.  In this case there was a tag, so that might be a good place to expand "OSB" *once*, rather than in every associated question, while describing engineered wood.