bdg@idaho.amdahl.com (Blaine Gaither) (06/07/91)
Does anyone else think that that "Communications" is over-designed.
It has become so baroque, no ... even rococo, that is getting hard to
find anything in it or read it. I am not talking about the quality of
the articles, but rather the actual layout/pasteup and use of color.
I subscrbe to Aldus magazine, and Communications is even more guady than
that publication (whose job is to show people how to incorporate fluff and
graphics-junk into their publications).
I think it's the "revenge of the PC Correct Graphic Designers from Mars".
Blaine
--
Blaine Gaither
Amdahl Corporation
143 No. 2nd East St., Rexburg, Idaho 83440-1619
UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!bdg (208) 356-8915
INTERNET: bdg@tetons.idaho.amdahl.comdave@visual1.jhuapl.edu (Dave Weintraub) (06/11/91)
In article <BDG.91Jun7093338@targhee.idaho.amdahl.com>, bdg@idaho.amdahl.com (Blaine Gaither) writes: |> |> Does anyone else think that that "Communications" is over-designed. |> It has become so baroque, no ... even rococo, that is getting hard to |> find anything in it or read it. I am not talking about the quality of |> the articles, but rather the actual layout/pasteup and use of color. |> Yes. Yes. Yes!!! (I notice that this is a trend. For example, INSIGHT magazine also just turned to unreadable fonts and distracting graphics/etc.) I once edited a Proceedings for the ACM (APL83). I wish that they would stick to their own standards, and shoot for professionalism, over hype! This is being posted on INTERNET by dave@visual1.jhuapl.edu. I can also be reached as dave@aplvm.bitnet Dave Weintraub The Applied Physics Laboratory The Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins Road 3-145 Laurel MD 20723-6099 USA (301)-953-5839
rickb@seqp4.sequoia.com (Richard Breen) (06/15/91)
In <BDG.91Jun7093338@targhee.idaho.amdahl.com> bdg@idaho.amdahl.com (Blaine Gaither) writes: >Does anyone else think that that "Communications" is over-designed. [... stuff deleted ...] >I think it's the "revenge of the PC Correct Graphic Designers from Mars". >Blaine >-- >Blaine Gaither >Amdahl Corporation > 143 No. 2nd East St., Rexburg, Idaho 83440-1619 > UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!bdg (208) 356-8915 > INTERNET: bdg@tetons.idaho.amdahl.com Yes, Blaine, I agree. I think it has become over-designed. I prefer the way it looked ten years ago. As a professional journal it shouldn't need all kinds of glitz. It's one thing to make things "colorful" and not-boring, but I think it has gone down hill. Most of the other ACM members I talk to at work seem to make similar comments. Rick Breen (rickb@sequoia.com) Sequoia Systems, Inc. Marlboro, Ma 01752
lhsux@Sequoia.uucp (Lorne Schachter) (06/16/91)
>I think it has become over-designed. I prefer the way it looked ten >years ago. As a professional journal it shouldn't need all kinds of >glitz. It's one thing to make things "colorful" and not-boring, but >I think it has gone down hill. Most of the other ACM members I talk to >at work seem to make similar comments. > I agree. What can we effectively do to get them to change to a more professional format? Lorne Schachter
rschwart@paul.rutgers.edu (Bob Schwartz) (06/17/91)
> >I think it has become over-designed. I prefer the way it looked ten > >years ago. As a professional journal it shouldn't need all kinds of > >glitz. It's one thing to make things "colorful" and not-boring, but > >I think it has gone down hill. Most of the other ACM members I talk to > >at work seem to make similar comments. > > I agree. What can we effectively do to get them to change to a more > professional format? Even just a small thing like changing the overly bold, squat or narrow typefaces to being merely somewhat bold, squat or narrow would be an improvement. Reading the Calendar of Events and the Contents would be instantly easier. I guess they are trying to enliven CACM with layout and design, but they need to employ more restraint to avoid distracting from the content. Fancy borders, two full pages of boldfaced text with no paragraph indentations, pages with dark blue or red backgrounds, and letters so big and tall that they are difficult to read do NOT make CACM more "accessible" or more "like a magazine." Take a look at IEEE-CS publications, or real magazines, for that matter. It is embarassing, in this age of desktop publishing and increased general interest and awareness of document design, to see ACM's flagship publication go off the deed end. It reinforces the stereotype that most computer folks can't be trusted to have good design sense (except for code). -- Bob Schwartz
chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (06/18/91)
In article <Jun.17.11.45.48.1991.22387@paul.rutgers.edu>, rschwart@paul.rutgers.edu (Bob Schwartz) writes: > It is embarassing, in this age of desktop publishing and increased > general interest and awareness of document design, to see ACM's > flagship publication go off the deed end. It reinforces the > stereotype that most computer folks can't be trusted to have good > design sense (except for code). CACM also serves to point out that layout artists know NOTHING about computers. I am referring to the content of the pull quotes, those big bits of text pulled from an article to fill out the page. There may be more vacuous statements in those articles, but I doubt it. For example, the June issue offers these amazing insights: All computations in NUT are performed with objects. Every object belongs to a class and has a value. Whoa! Hold me back! Computation with objects? And each one has, let me get this straight, a value? Whooeee! Looks like my degree has expired! How about Expressions may be classified as arithmetic, memory and control, depending on the types of their operands and results. Yikes! Operands AND results? This is heady stuff! I'm sure glad CACM is highlighting the bleeding edge technology. I'm fully expecting this sort of pull quote in a future issue: The computer runs faster when you plug it in the wall. or Pressing a "key" transmits that character to the machine. Most pull quotes are extracted by layout artists as they fill the pages. They obviously try to find quotes with "computer words" in them. Sadly, no one seems to check these quotes after they've been pulled, to make sure they aren't so simplistic. If someone from CACM tells me that the editors pull those quotes, then they're REALLY in trouble. On a separate note, did anyone else find those articles on Soviet computing rather... pedestrian? I think CACM is suffering from the "We're friends with the Soviets, so let's publish their stuff" craze sweeping the magazine world. Perhaps publishing Soviet articles that are state of the art would be a better strategy. Unfortunately, I think the acceptance criteria are significantly reduced for Soviet authors. -- Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-3363 A good newspaper is never good enough, but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever. -- Garrison Keillor
bdg@idaho.amdahl.com (Blaine Gaither) (06/19/91)
Bob Schwartz >It is embarassing, in this age of desktop publishing and increased >general interest and awareness of document design, to see ACM's >flagship publication go off the deed end. It reinforces the >stereotype that most computer folks can't be trusted to have good >design sense (except for code). It is clear to me that there are esentially no computer folks at ACM HQ. These are "trained professionals" in publishing. In general they have no idea of the meaning the technical content of most published papers. THIS IS NOT BAD IN ITSELF, but remember they is not a group of volunteer sig folkes. In general we have the same problems with moving HQ that the presidents/governors have in trying to redirect large Civil service orgs. The problem is that SOME of the ACM HQ folks I have talked with seem to think we (the members) are children. They act as if we are not capable of holding valid opinions on publication format, or for that mater, society management or budgeting. Should we just lay back and pay more dues to pay for more staff overhead? Blaine -- Blaine Gaither Amdahl Corporation 143 No. 2nd East St., Rexburg, Idaho 83440-1619 UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!bdg (208) 356-8915 INTERNET: bdg@idaho.amdahl.com
bks@lima.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) (06/20/91)
In article <Jun.17.11.45.48.1991.22387@paul.rutgers.edu> rschwart@paul.rutgers.edu (Bob Schwartz) writes: >> >I think it has become over-designed. I would like to add my voice to this chorus. Someone at CACM should read Jon Bentley's old column on layout and check in with the SIGCHI people about the shortcomings of overusing color and fonts. ---------------- Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
brian%harpo.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) (06/20/91)
> From: bdg@idaho.amdahl.com (Blaine Gaither) > Subject: Communications > > Does anyone else think that that "Communications" is over-designed. > It has become so baroque, no ... even rococo, that is getting hard to > find anything in it or read it. I am not talking about the quality of ... Add me to the list of people that don't like the CACM's now-not-so-new format. The fonts used in the articles are incredibly hard on the eyes. Brian ----------------- Brian Sturgill brian@cs.utah.edu
lhsux@Sequoia.uucp (Lorne Schachter) (06/20/91)
> >Add me to the list of people that don't like the CACM's now-not-so-new format. >The fonts used in the articles are incredibly hard on the eyes. > >Brian The list of complaints has been going on for a while now and there have been no comments from anyone at the ACM about it. Does anyone there read this group or do we have to overload them with email to get their attention? Lorne
SPOOL@NORTHEASTERN.EDU (Jared M. Spool/User Interface Engineering (508)470-1213) (06/21/91)
First, if I were at ACM and reading this, I'd think it would be nuts to address these issues directly on this list. There is something only slightly less than "a linch-mob" attitude. And the list represents a very small percentage of the total membership. On my library shelf, right here next to me, I have some 15 years worth of CACM issues. While the new format is a bit overzelous, compared to the 1976 format, it is great. Good design is done in an iterative fashion. You try something, you see if it works, you learn if it doesn't. We have to give ACM a lot of credit for trying something. Now we have to help them learn what worked and what didn't. I think the best way to get HQ's attention is to send a letter to the editor. The letter shouldn't be "THE NEW FORMAT STINKS!". Instead, it should be something constructive that they can work with. If everyone on this list were to write a letter to the editor stating three things that the CACM should stop doing, three things it should start doing and three things that it should continue doing, I bet you would see ACM being very responsive. This would give HQ some hard and fast information to learn from. The April issue has a small paragraph in the "Editorial Pointers" column: "Thanks to those of you have have taken the time to offer us feedback on these efforts. As a result of your letters, we have added some refinements to our editorial and design goals and will continue to do so. We value the tradition of community involvement in this publication and encourage the continue partnership of readers, authors, advertisors, ACM members and volunteers. Like the computing industry, _Communications_ is moving with the times and benefitting from the process of change." It was signed by James Maurer, Executive Editor. He lists his email address as "JIMM@ACMVM.BITNET" in the publisher's box. ACM is our organization. Let's all help make it be what we want it to be. Jared M. Spool Greater Boston SIGCHI Chair also Principal Founder, User Interface Engineering
schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod) (06/21/91)
In article <2B7A99A8E0400312@northeastern.edu>, SPOOL@NORTHEASTERN.EDU (Jared M. Spool/User Interface Engineering (508)470-1213) writes: |> I think the best way to get HQ's attention is to send a letter to the editor. |> The letter shouldn't be "THE NEW FORMAT STINKS!". Instead, it should be |> something constructive that they can work with. |> |> If everyone on this list were to write a letter to the editor stating |> three things that the CACM should stop doing, three things it should start |> doing and three things that it should continue doing, I bet you would see |> ACM being very responsive. This would give HQ some hard and fast information |> to learn from. OK, but what if the constructive suggestion would be: ``Use a better typesetting system''? Really ugly spacing and bad line breaks (I am able to cite some if someone wants to know what I mean ;-), a lot of wrong hyphenations are not pleasent. I have read in the editorial that they want to make CACM more ``professional'' (whatever this meant -- I did not got it). Well, if it is really a professional journal then the above points -- purely technical -- should not occur. There are enough systems out there which do it better. (As an ironic sidepoint: ACM has published stuff on this topic: Read the TOPLAS article of Knuth on ``Optimal Line Breaking in Paragraphs.'' In the meantime, a lot of systems do it this way, not only TeX :-) -- Joachim (no one official, just a `normal' ACM member since 8 years :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Joachim Schrod Email: xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet Computer Science Department Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany
faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) (06/21/91)
It is also probably worth noting that this newsgroup has only been around a couple of months. Publication lead times typically run about 6-8 weeks for a glossy magazine, at minimum. Thus, any changes originally suggested by the net wouldn't show up until at least the *next* issue; our current discussion might effect the Sept or Oct issue. This is the realities of publishing leadtimes. Daniel -- [W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-8228 [Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org [Vmail]:213/336-5454 Box#3149 "A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually" -- Abba Eban
dave@visual1.jhuapl.edu (Dave Weintraub) (06/22/91)
In article <BDG.91Jun19093923@targhee.idaho.amdahl.com>, bdg@idaho.amdahl.com (Blaine Gaither) writes: |> It is clear to me that there are esentially no computer folks at ACM |> HQ. These are "trained professionals" in publishing. In general they |> have no idea of the meaning the technical content of most published |> papers. THIS IS NOT BAD IN ITSELF, but remember they is not a group |> of volunteer sig folkes. |> ... |> The problem is that SOME of the ACM HQ folks I have talked with seem |> to think we (the members) are children. They act as if we are not |> capable of holding valid opinions on publication format, or for that |> mater, society management or budgeting. Should we just lay back and |> pay more dues to pay for more staff overhead? |> I wholeheartedly concur. As one who has edited a Proceedings for ACM (APL83), I can attest that the attitude of the office staff was patronizing and not especially cooperative. I must say, however, that the general state of the Proceedings published (compiled by volunteers in the various SIGs, etc.) is definitely on the decline. This is being posted on INTERNET by dave@visual1.jhuapl.edu. I can also be reached as dave@aplvm.bitnet Dave Weintraub The Applied Physics Laboratory The Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins Road 3-145 Laurel MD 20723-6099 USA (301)-953-5839
vkk@duke.cs.duke.edu (Victor K. Kohnke) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun20.113548.10151@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> lhsux@hercules.UUCP (Lorne Schachter) writes: >> >>Add me to the list of people that don't like the CACM's now-not-so-new format. >>The fonts used in the articles are incredibly hard on the eyes. >> >>Brian > >The list of complaints has been going on for a while now and there have been >no comments from anyone at the ACM about it. Does anyone there read this >group or do we have to overload them with email to get their attention? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Lorne I think that it might be worth a try. I have had good responce from ACMHELP as long as I ask for a confermation from them. I must admit that while I am not as displeased with the new CACM format as some, and I am getting tired of this thread, I too am not pleased with it and its use of fonts and "cute pictures". I personally would like this thread to end here and those who wish to continue it take it to ACMHELP. Victor ============================================================================= Victor Kohnke | Duke University School of Law kohnke@faculity.law.duke.edu | Durham, NC (919) 684-2298 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Duke University Law School, Duke University as a whole, my former English Teachers, family and friends formally disavow any connection with me if any statement made is either offensive, contains inaccurate information or is grammatically incorrect. =============================================================================
sysmark@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Mark Bartelt) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun19.204044.11529@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@lima.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes: | I would like to add my voice to this chorus. Someone at CACM should | read Jon Bentley's old column on layout and check in with the SIGCHI | people about the shortcomings of overusing color and fonts. Hell, I'd be delighted if they'd start running Bentley's column again. It was truly annoying when it was dropped. I seem to recall (though I can't easily check, as most of my books and journals are in boxes at the moment) that a year or two after dropping it, the editors announced that the column would be reinstated. I don't recall ever seeing its reappearance, though. In any case, things have become truly appalling. (I know a couple of folks who feel that the quality of the *content* had deteriorated to the point that it was no longer worth reading years ago, making the topic of layout and graphics an irrelevant one. But we'll leave that one for a different thread ...) Since the small subset of my stuff that's not in boxes is totally disorganized, it was easy to take a random sample off the shelf: I picked the first three CACMs I found -- Feb90, Sep90, and Jun91. The first one predates the invasion of the layout artists from hell, and still has the appearance of a professional journal, more or less. Sep90 reflects the beginning of the downward trend, and Jun90 has reached the level of self-parody. (What purpose, for example, does the nonsense along the top of pages 68-84 serve?) They really have fallen prey to what a friend calls the "ransom note style of document preparation". Mark Bartelt 416/978-5619 Canadian Institute for mark@cita.toronto.edu Theoretical Astrophysics mark@cita.utoronto.ca
CLORE@OHSTPHRM.BITNET (Michael Clore) (06/26/91)
>Hell, I'd be delighted if they'd start running Bentley's column again. >It was truly annoying when it was dropped. I seem to recall (though Why was Bentley's column dropped? Could it be that Bentley did not want to write it anymore? Michael Allen Clore "It is unworthy of excellent (persons) to lose hours like slaves in the labour of calculation" Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716) <CLORE@OHSTPHRM.PHARMACY.OHIO-STATE.EDU> or <CLORE@OHSTPHRM.BITNET>
harrison@csl.dl.nec.com (Mark Harrison) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.175017.12876@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> mark@cita.toronto.edu writes: >Hell, I'd be delighted if they'd start running Bentley's column again. FYI, Bentley has just started a new column in "Unix Review." I think it's called the Software Exploratorium, or something like that. The first article was on dictionary compression, and seems to be just the kind of thing his "Programming Pearls" were. :-) :-) :-) -- Mark Harrison | Note: harrison@ssd.dl.nec.com and harrison@csl.dl.nec.com | necssd!harrison are not operating at (214)518-5050 | present. Please forward mail through the | above address. Sorry for the inconvenience.