I skip the documentation and I look for "examples/" and "t/"ests as its code that actually supposed to run :)

I'd have to need what that module did very, very badly before I'd try to piece together how to use its functionality from a few dozen or hundred ok()/nok() tests.

Reminds me of another module I recently looked at:

• The module pod tells you nothing; just points you at a readme file in a source code tree.
• The readme contains:
  1. An advert.

     I'm already looking, why are you advertising to me?

  2. Some thankyous to the developers.

     If the author works with the devlopers; can't he thank them in person?

  3. Copyright and license information.

     Aren't they traditionally in files called COPYRIGHT and LICENCE?

  4. A link to a website.

     At last; I'm getting somewhere

  Buuuuuuut no.

• The website, a triumph of pointlessly oversized graphics and fonts and worshiping at the alter of social media. conceals all the links behind oversized buttons and meaningless text such that you have to click randomly in the hope that you find something that is active.

  And when you get to what might be (very) loosely termed, "the documentation" you read:

  Software Developers

  See step 3 of the INSTALL notes for simple examples, and the `xxxx` command documentation for more information.

  Great! A whole website and I've got to go off, download a .tar.gz, unpack it, scrabble around inside to locate a text file called INSTALL; then scrabble around inside that for a subsection of it in order to find the documentation.

This is how they want to encourage me to use their code? Could they have made working out what it is and how to use it more obscure? Perhaps they could have encrypted it all and posted a web treasure hunt to track down the decryption keys al la GCHQ."Starting from www.canyoufind.it.co.uk entrants must hunt down four codes hidden around the world-wide web."

I should coco. I don't care if it is free code, my time is more valuable than that.