I recently created & submitted a calculator-ish style puzzle in which lists several steps (1,2,3,4,5,6). After the 6th step, one gets a list of numbers, at which point you’re pretty much done because the next step is simply using the well-known convention 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, etc. [There’s no link to this puzzle; it hasn’t been published yet].

Shortly after submitting it, I made the following change: I added a “Step 7” which says…
Step 7: Reverse ‘tanga’ (use 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, etc.)

I did this because I thought it would allow newbies to be less confused, and because adding the 7th step didn’t seem to detract from the overall puzzle for the non-newbies.

I am bringing up this point because of some comments I saw in last night’s OWW…
( http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/8170-1-31-2012 )

This OWW asks the puzzler to find the ages of children. While most veteran puzzlers thought to convert the ages they attained via {1=A, 2=B, 3=C, etc.} without much effort, there were three different people who complained that this logical leap from numbers to letters wasn’t clued by the author (me).

I’m wondering if I should have pasted
Remember: 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, etc.
in the corner of this OWW?

In general, when implementing puzzle ideas, I have begun to make a conscious effort to make the final product be newbie-friendly when possible (I realize that, quite often, this isn’t possible).

I think it’s totally fine that we have assumed conventions. I also think the awesome puzzles that result from assuming these conventions are worth the risk of occasionally frustrating newbies. However, I wonder if sometimes we “abuse” the existence of these conventions when we don’t need to?

What do y’all think?