First things first: you design cool socks, the Mobius scarf I knit a while back was great fun (and my MIL the science teacher liked it) and I rarely knit socks or other small tubes on anything but two circs.
That said, I have finally started my first sock from your most recent book, and I would just like to say:
1. Just because you’re doing new or uncommon stuff, it doesn’t mean you also need to assign cutesy new names to old techniques along the way. “Left lifted increase” and “the stitch on the row below” are fine, for example, and I can see the need to abbreviate the former as LLinc; there’s no need to get into “la-link” and “daughter stitches”.
1a. In fact, cutesy language is annoying when it comes from adults, just in general.
2. As an engineer who writes a lot of documents, I can handle high levels of complication. Not everyone can. Giving directions with unnecessary complexity is a sin against the Muse of Technical Documentation. (I think perhaps she should be named Errata, though it’s possible that it’s part of Urania’s purview.) Yes, knitting patterns count as technical documentation; as such, clarity should be a goal second only to correctness.
3. How can anyone consider that toddler socks with long hanging tails to trip over are a good idea??
Thanks for the ideas,
P.S. The diagrams are nice and clear, anyhow.