Evaluating the Effectivity of a Document to the Readers

Please read each discussion post, tell what you like/dislike, agree/disagree, if you have any questions apply them to the response. Keep spirit.
Topic. In attachments
Post1: The document in question for this discussion, “What is “Open Heart Surgery”?” is prepared to provide answers to patients and families facing specific medical procedures. This document is printed on standard size (8 ½” x 11”) paper and folded in half. Unfortunately, the layout of the document does not lend well to be folded, as it is written in letter format rather than broken into columns or sections that would create a well-balanced, flowing pamphlet style document. I also found that the wording was much too long, with more detail than necessary. Given the emotional state that the readers are likely to be in, a much shorter, concise definition and brief history on the cardiopulmonary bypass machine would be much better suited to the audience. I also think that a drawing of the machine, with modes of action would be very beneficial to the audience, giving them a visual representation of the theory that is trying to be explained in such a short space.
The overall impact of this document should be a sense of education, in order to ease the fears and tensions the patient and their family is likely to be experiencing. The original will likely lead to confusion rather than relief, but in reshaping and transforming the document with the suggestions I've made, those same people should have some relief in the knowledge they gain from the document.
Post 2:This article, “What is “Open Heart Surgery”?”, was written by Donald L Bricker, M.D. with the purpose of clarifying the difference between actual open heart surgery and other cardiac procedures. I think this article is directed towards patients, former patients, and their loved ones. The typical reader probably has minor knowledge of medical terminology and practices. It's hard to pinpoint their emotional state because I think that would depend of the outcome of their procedure and their personal experiences surrounding the event. The readers of this article will use the knowledge gained to help loved ones, friends, and other interested parties understand what type of cardiac surgery they had, whether it be open heart or not. I think that anyone outside the medical community would somewhat struggle with this article. I have taken a couple anatomy classes from high school to college and I couldn't read through at my normal pace. I found myself rereading sentences frequently. I think that the author could have chosen more appropriate language that would have made the article more accessible and easily understood by the intended audience. If I were the editor for this author I would have suggested he use more laymen's terms. While I understand this is a scientific piece I feel like the tone of this is rather cold. As a patient, I think it would be more comforting and helpful if it you could feel a warm bedside manner. Had the intended audience been fellow doctors I don't think this would have mattered. I can't say I could have edited this down to a single sentence, but I definitely think it could have been condensed.