I would say the two biggest difficulties were 1) Undoing all the very bad math education I'd received earlier in life, and associated repulsion that came from it 2) Figuring out that when I ran into walls understanding certain things it could always be reduced to gaps in my knowledge that were implicitly assumed to not be there. I often ran into that reading proofs in the early days and wanted nothing more than 'very explicit' proofs as you describe (I used to always write mine that way too! In part because it's what I wished the authors were doing).
I'd like to build something in software that automatically associates expandable annotations to mathematical notation, e.g.: http://images.slideplayer.com/34/10244075/slides/slide_5.jpg —It would be super annoying if all the text were always revealed, but with a little cleverness and imagination I think a good scheme could be developed which would satisfy both beginners and experts. I would want a standard library of annotations which would automatically get associated just by using certain standard notational elements.
Here's another demo I put together to try out the same concept for natural language documents: http://symbolflux.com/lodessay/
http://worrydream.com/#!/ScientificCommunicationAsSequential...
No mathematician today doesn't have access to a computer. Just fold the proof to some appropriate coarse level by default, and let the reader expand any part they want to read. It's not like our computers had any meaningful limit on how big a mathematical proof could be.
This may gradually change if proof assistants and proof checkers improve. It may become to incorporate some machine learning aspects and let algorithms search proof space that is too tedious for humans. This would finally turn computer into bicycle for mathematician.