This is not a contradiction to that, but I think it was Feynman who said that if you can’t explain your topic to a layperson, then maybe you don’t understand it as well as you think. That, too, I consider an overstatement, because some stuff just is complicated. But my experience (teaching at uni) tells me that what appears intuitive to one person (A) can be completely random to someone else (B), but that there is likely another way of phrasing the same thing which makes it very obvious to B (while A might be wondering why you’d phrase it in such a funny way…).
Applied to the issue at hand (and actually to the filmic module, too, which has some people, including myself, guessing a lot, and guessing wrong): I think the same operations could be presented/explained in a way which could allow more people to develop an intuition for how they work, what will happen if they pull a certain slider, and which sliders they should pull to get a certain result. Often, the key to this lies in unstated assumptions which one person considers too obvious to mention, and another to obscure to consider.
When I write a paper and I get a “stupid” remark by some reviewer who didn’t understand what the point of the paper was: I can’t deal with that by explaining to the reviewer that they’re wrong (even though they probably are!) – this is a sign that the point of the paper was not clear enough, and I need to rephrase it to make sure people get it. I find this the hardest and often most tedious part of my work but unless I explain what I do and people can understand and appreciate it, I’m not really done.
