[Nevermark]

> having the literature cluttered up with the same explanations again and again becomes clunky

I think that really is the best reason for not being more accessible. Along with less work - given a good paper already can take a lot of work to write clearly even for the immediate audience.

But there is tremendous value in reaching a wider audience, for readers, writers, and the very real serendipity of cross pollinating ideas. So an easily skipped concise titled section, that gave a little context or example for the non-inside crowd, would be a nice tradition. Even an appendix - although that might strike the established culture as too quirky.

Some papers manage to do something like that, a colorful example or perspective adding levity as well as clarity. So it is not breaking any barriers. Just not standard or prescribed.

Or maybe it wouldn't have much impact. I tend to find reasons to dive into many different new topics, so it is a prevalent need for one!

[xanderlewis]

> an easily skipped concise titled section, that gave a little context or example for the non-inside crowd, would be a nice tradition.

I completely agree — especially in the modern era where extra pages cost nothing.