[clairity]

> "The amount of text necessary to explain to the average NYT reader what a rendering engine is probably more then the allotted text size..."

it's not that hard to summarize: a rendering engine transforms html into pixels on the screen. most people will have at least a vague idea of what html and pixels are. there's no further need to dive into the details where that description is less than 100% accurate (e.g., sreen readers).

that's to say, the reporting is just lazy and uninformed. no need to bail them out with a technical excuse.

[dtx1]

> most people will have at least a vague idea what html and pixels are. there's no further need to dive into the details where that description is less than 100% accurate (e.g., sreen readers).

I doubt very much the average person on the street has a clear idea what a pixel is, let alone what HTML is. And even your description is so incomplete it's wrong since the safari engine also includes JavaScript execution, media rendering etc. on safari, proving my point: if you try to simplify it for the average reader, your description ends up wrong

[salamandersauce]

I think you can do an ok job. Something like the "The rendering engine's job is to translate the computer languages of the web into the picture you see on the screen. Like human translators two rendering engine's might not understand the same things the same way and differences can occur."

Screen readers are a distraction. Even completely blind readers would have a concept of what is displayed on a computer monitor even if they've never seen it.

[clairity]

yes, i said vague idea, not clear idea.

but none of that stuff matters for reaching a reasonable conclusion. we don't need to know how a transmission works to reason about speed and acceleration, only that it converts power from the engine into velocity somehow. the whole purpose of abstraction is to take advantage of such decouplings within a brain limited in how much information it can hold in working memory in any one instant.