The only thing Iāll add is that Iām reticent to include all of the variables for cards that are not explicitly about the equation itself. Otherwise we run the risk of āwhy not add them to all cards related to this topicā and I think there is a strong argument to be made there that adding multiple lines of variable-definitions to conceptual cards, that are not either immediately about the equation/s or the variables themselves, runs the risk of some pretty limited additional utility (at a significant expense of space).
Conversely, the additional 6-or-so lines that are used defining variables that arenāt mentioned in the card are taking up a lot of real estate, that arguably could either make more space for the image to appear (think smaller screens, which are a majority of users) and/or useful addendums and notes). In this case, the notes at the bottom of the Extra field are going to be completely crowded out and, in many or most cases, lost to the user.
It also happens that, in this case, the note at the bottom sucks and is in all caps and is not at all clear (and should probably be removed) but all the above points still withstanding.
I definitely agree with you that as a general practice this wouldnāt make sense. Again, it kind of falls on the issue of not being able to create cards but having important information missing (at least according to time spent discussing on KA and mention in Kaplan as an equation to know). Does it maybe make sense to delete the variable explanations, keep the equations, photo and note? Or do you think the equations do not belong at all.
Yeah, this would be an excellent example of something that is covered, at least to some degree, by all three sources (if memory serves). Thus, a good example of the kind of thing weād like to argue for inclusion.
The ideal solution would be to create a new card. And, of course, add it to the pile of things for which weād like to have new cards. Thereās not much getting around it being a gap in content, by all indications.
That being said, Iām not sure that the solution to content gaps for, say, a given equation, is to stuff the relevant equations into the Extra field of sibling conceptual cards, for a few reasons. At least, letās say, not 8+ lines of text. I do get the instinct, but itās a messy workaround at best.
In a perfect world, I think the Extra field for equations should be mostly tied to the equations. Extra field for conceptual cards should be mostly for conceptual info. Thatās not at all a hard-and-fast rule, and sometimes it makes sense to remind someone of a related equation. But, space vs. utility.
I think the updated version you have is a better compromise; itās punchy, at least gets that info on the board, doesnāt take up too much real estate, and at least makes it that the equation is searchable (which is something, at least)
Just glancing around, I wonder if this image isnāt better-suited to the concept as a whole, as well:
Great! That all makes sense to me.
As far as keeping the original picture in the card, I thought the new one is an improvement because:
- Already has theta and d labeled to contextualize the equations.
- I think the āmisleadingā section previously in the extra section was describing the image. āTHE CENTRAL POINT HAS THE BIGGEST AMPLITUDE.ā Relative amplitudes arenāt included in the original (just min max labels). This new image shows that the central maximum has the largest amplitude. In addition, by providing the āwaveformā, it more clearly illustrates the idea of local minima and maxima corresponding to dark and bright fringes respectively. It also nicely illustrates the bright fringeās decreasing amplitude as we move from the central maximum.
Neither image can solve the other āmisleadingā component of the original in the extra section: āTHE COLORS ON THE WALL ARE IN A RAINBOW TYPE DEALā. I looked around for an image that contains all these elements and couldnāt find one but I think this is covered by my new explanation of double slit diffraction of monochromatic vs white light. lmk what you think.
Lolol, that phrasing is so bad ārainbow type deal.ā We gotta get rid of that. I want to die
The image, as far as I can see, can either be concept-specific (the one I linked above), or equation-specific (showing the lamba and whatnot). In a perfect world, weād have one of each for the conceptual card and the formula card. In this case, I donāt have a hard preference, though I hew maybe slightly toward a conceptual card having a more conceptually-framed image. That being said, in this case itās a bit more dubious because we donāt have coverage on each type of card, so itās a bit of a best-of-two-bad options.
But itās not a hill Iāll die on. I can see either being helpful, and Iāll let you decide. 
That being said, if you have images that weāve updated in the deck in the last few days, week, whatever it is, send them my way if you would. Iām planning to send out the MCAT update post tomorrow, and if thereās one thing the people love itās shiny images
Or, we can put the lamba image in the Extra field and then other one in Additional Resources. Maybe thatās the move, for the time being
I think thatās a good compromise. I think the old one is prettier but I really have no way to interpret/follow all those lines with constructive/destructive interactions/whatās really going on in the image. The part I like the most about the new one is really less so the d and theta and more the waveform shown corresponding to light vs dark fringes and amplitude/relative intensity.
Also, sounds good Iāll send them over!
Iāll resubmit the suggestion since I donāt think I have access to add images through the website. Would you please reject this one when you get a chance?
I went ahead and did the image change for Additional Resources, FYI
Sounds good. I oddly still canāt see any images in the additional resources even after unprotecting that other day. I wonder if I have to just bulk delete anything in the additional resources section currently since thereās a blank image icon then reset local changes.
Resubmitted with variables deleted as discussed.
Edit: Actually just saw your suggestion from the other day to someone:
Additionally, because the field has already populated with more-or-less useless little icons, I imagine youāll want to get rid of them. In order to do this youāll likely have to install the Batch Field Edit add-on (https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/291119185, code: 291119185). With this installed you can delete the āAdditional Resourcesā field in one sweep, which should clean up that field for you.
Iāll go with this.