Recently, I discovered a rather unexpected thing. We are writing an article in collaboration and we permanently have some discussions about how to write, in which order, how to organize material etc.
Today we have understood that we are reading articles in different maners.
I start from the abstract, then I'm reading the introduction where I expect all results stated clearly and the motivation is explained. If I don't understand the introduction, I don't read this acticle. Then, I am reading the text in the article which is kind of "water". Probably, at the end, I start to carefully check the details in theorems and proofs.
My friend usually proceeds in an opposite way. He skips the introduction, reads only definitions, propositions and theorems, and some stuff around which he could understand. Then, if he is really interested, he starts to read the usual text.
These two approaches result in writing: I care about the introduction, beginings and ends of each chapter, making proofs as short as possible and explaning motivation only in the introduction. I suppose that the reader reads from the beginning till the end. He only cares about all the important thing being stated in propositions and theorems, no matter in which part (in which order) of the paper. He also does not care a lot about the logical structure, but more about motivation explained and repeated.
So, what are possible ways to structure an article? Do you normally suppose that the reader reads from the beginning till the end or just skimming? Does it correlate with your writing style?
It is a big vague and personal, so I expect also rather personal opinions and strategies.