duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) (05/02/91)
What do you folks think of the new format of CACM? I don't think it is appropriate for a professional journal. I find the fonts used for the table of contents and article sections difficult to scan. The page used to start articles look more like something in an ad, and thus skippable, rather than something to read. The whole job looks like they either are amateurs flush with the power of desktop publishing or the hired a layout designer who knew nothing about how the journal is used. Talk about bad user interfaces ... Steve Duncan duncan@rti.rti.org
ola@duke.cs.duke.edu (Owen L. Astrachan) (05/02/91)
The new format is a nightmare. You (Stephen Duncan) are exactly right when you say that it looks like someone just figured out what fonts are and has gone desktop publishing crazy. The new layout is garish as well as inconsistent from issue to issue. I used to enjoy the articles and have lamented that the content of the issues has changed somewhat. Now, even when an article I'm interested in appears, I find it very difficult to read. I continually wonder why this has happened and why no letters appear in the CACM commenting on the situation.
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May2.115138.1323@rti.rti.org> duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes: >What do you folks think of the new format of CACM? I don't think it >is appropriate for a professional journal. I find the fonts used for #begin sarcasm The new format is great. It just looks like all the other trashy pulp magazines. It tells me I can safely dispatch it to the trash can without wasting my time reading it. #end sarcasm -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
ron@itrchq-en.itrc.on.ca (Ron Riesenbach) (05/02/91)
I agree with your observations. The new format looks like it was done by
graphic artists on acid. The designers seem bent on using every feature
available in their desk-top publishing package without regard for readability.
The result is a distracting mish-mash of fonts and formats which makes finding
and reading articles a chore. This frivolous misuse of publishing technology
detracts from the content of the JACM rather than enhancing it. It represents
the worst kind of creativity -- showmanship at the expense of substance.
Ron Riesenbachdab@moxie.moxie.oswego.edu (David Alan Bozak) (05/02/91)
well, I certainly agree that the Table of Contents is abysmally hard
to read - and find! (It does look like an ad to me as I scan quickly),
but I don't have any trouble with the rest of the layout. Journals do
not have to be dull in appearance.
-dab
--
/\ David Alan Bozak, Computer Science Department
/ \ SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 (315) 341-2347
_____/____\_____ Internet: dab@moxie.oswego.edu
/ / \ \ or dab%moxie.oswego.edu@nisc.nyser.net
/____/ \____\ UUCP: {cornell!devvax,rutgers!sunybcs}!oswego!moxie!dabjones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) (05/02/91)
Here's another vote: The new format CACM is a typographical disaster!
The table of contents is hard to read. The names and titles of many
if not most articles are hard to discover amidst the wild graphics. The
choices of character fonts in the text involves frequent font clashes.
It looks like they hired a graphics artist straight out of art school
do do the design, someone with a life ambition to design Brillo boxes or
something equally trashy.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
(author of an occasional article
in CACM, but with no intention
to submit to that journal again
until they fix their format).
laub@Software.Mitel.COM (Boniface Lau) (05/03/91)
One thing that the current CACM format irritates me a lot is the postcard inserts - because the postcard is thicker than other pages, I cannot conveniently flip through the pages with my thumb. I hate these postcard inserts so much that for every magazine that I bought, the first thing I did was to tear out all these inserts. After that, I felt MUCH MUCH better at flipping through the pages. When CACM introduced the first postcard insert, I torn it off, wrote on it "This is not another byte magazine!", and mail it back to ACM. These postcard inserts convey a very CHEAP image. I guess all these changes are to counter the old image of an ivory tower publication. One thing good about the new format is the paper. Because of the reflection from shiny paper, the IEEE Transactions are much more difficult to read. While both the old and new CACM format do not use shiny paper, the new format gives a better feel and it is almost a joy to highlight it with highlighter. BTW, anyone knows why a magazine like the IEEE Transactions would publish on shiny paper? -- Boniface Lau (613) 592-2122 ext. 3042 laub@Software.Mitel.COM Mitel Corp. ...uunet!mitel!spock!laub 350 Legget Drive, Kanata Ontario, Canada, K2K 1X3
hofbauer@csri.toronto.edu (John Hofbauer) (05/03/91)
Just awful. Completely unreadable. I hope someone from the ACM is reading this newsgroup.
eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au (05/03/91)
In article <5839@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>, jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes: > Here's another vote: The new format CACM is a typographical disaster! > The table of contents is hard to read. The names and titles of many > if not most articles are hard to discover amidst the wild graphics. The > choices of character fonts in the text involves frequent font clashes. > > It looks like they hired a graphics artist straight out of art school > do do the design, someone with a life ambition to design Brillo boxes or > something equally trashy. While we're on this subject, I'd like to throw in a bitch which goes back many years. My bookshelf contains CACM from 1975 to the present, and from time to time I have to look up a specific article. (Which brings up another point - although the production quality is terrible, the actual articles can be very good. Of course this depends on keeping the good authors interested in submitting good stuff). Anyway, it's very easy to find a specific issue up to January 1983, just by reading the date/vol/no on the spine. After that date, the spines are quite unreadable. I would even go so far as to say that the design of the spine on the pre-1983 CACM is the best of any periodical I have seen. And that the post-1983 design is one of the worst. Peter Moylan eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) (05/03/91)
ola@duke.cs.duke.edu (Owen L. Astrachan) writes: > > I continually wonder why this has happened and why no letters appear in > the CACM commenting on the situation. So send one ---- tell them all of the GREAT things we have been saying here on the conf about the "new and improved" layout.
stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (Stephen P Spackman) (05/03/91)
While I agree that the new CACM format is an unmitigated disaster, I must say I do approve of the *idea* of screwing around a bit to get something that looks nice. But right now it feels a bit like those programmes that give GUIs a bad name, really it does. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- stephen p spackman Center for Information and Language Studies systems analyst University of Chicago ---------------------------------------------------------------------- p.s. Where *is* the table of contents? :-)
jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) (05/03/91)
From article <1991May3.125722.10073@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, by eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au: > > While we're on this subject, I'd like to throw in a bitch which goes back > many years. My bookshelf contains CACM from 1975 to the present, and from > time to time I have to look up a specific article. ... it's very easy to > find a specific issue up to January 1983, just by reading the date/vol/no > on the spine. After that date, the spines are quite unreadable. I actually phoned ACM headquarters about this problem soon after this problem showed up, and if you look at yours shelffull of CACM's, you'll find the result of my phone call in Jan. 1984. For the year from 1983 to 1984, the spine information was scattered around almost at random. After 1984, they made a very slight effort to organize things better, but it's still hard to read. All of this goes to say, ACM headquarters is responsive to complaints! My one complaint had an effect on the layout of the CACM spine, and if all of our complaints get read by the right people, I expect they will have a real effect. Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu
steve@Advansoft.COM (Steve Savitzky) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.115138.1323@rti.rti.org> duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes:
What do you folks think of the new format of CACM? I don't think it
is appropriate for a professional journal. I find the fonts used for
the table of contents and article sections difficult to scan. The
page used to start articles look more like something in an ad, and
thus skippable, rather than something to read.
I fully agree. The heavy san-serif type over a dark background that
starts each article not only looks just like an ad, it is ugly and
hard to read. The table of contents is a disaster. The last issue
had *entire articles* in what looked like san-serif boldface!
Anybody from CACM out there listening? CACM used to be my standard
good example of an attractive, easy-to-read technical publication; I
always found the typography clear and unobtrusive, unlike that in some
other publications in our field. Now it's my standard example of the
other sort. Somebody should take their desktop-publishing toys away
until they figure out how to use them.
Steve Duncan
duncan@rti.rti.org
Thanks for starting this thread, Steve; it needed to be said.
--
\ --Steve Savitzky-- \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \
\ steve@advansoft.COM \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<disclaimer.h> \
\ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954 \ 408-727-3357 \
\__ steve@arc.UUCP _________________________________________________________erf@progress.COM (Eric Feigenson) (05/04/91)
I agree with Stephen & Steve's comments. When the new CACM format started, it looked to me like someone was having a competition on how many different fonts could be used in a single publication (or on a single page). Even if the content remains the same, the look of the publication has become really "cheap". It's as if they're trying to become a more "mainstream" publication (like "Byte", et.al.). I hope not. Anyway, here's another vote of dissapointment at the new CACM format, for whatever it's worth. -EricF -- Eric R. Feigenson UUCP: mit-eddie!progress!erf Progress Software Corp. Internet: erf@progress.com 5 Oak Park Bedford, MA 01730
rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) (05/04/91)
In article <5862@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones) writes: > >All of this goes to say, ACM headquarters is responsive to complaints! So what's the phone number of ACM headquarters? -- Rich -- ``Read my MIPS -- no new VAXes!!'' -- George Bush after sniffing freon Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted. UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson Rich Thomson ARPA: rthomson@dsd.es.com PEXt Programmer
thomas@sono.uucp (Chris Thomas) (05/04/91)
duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes: >What do you folks think of the new format of CACM? I don't think it >is appropriate for a professional journal. I find the fonts used for >the table of contents and article sections difficult to scan. The >page used to start articles look more like something in an ad, and >thus skippable, rather than something to read. [...] Finally... a thread with major social significance! :-) I remember the first time I saw the new 'n improved CACM. My first reaction was that the designers had been reading too much "Spy" magazine. (I feared that the next issue might have pictures of Peter Neumann and Herb Grosch under the headline "Switched at Birth?") Not only are the typefaces often unattractive, sometimes they're just plain inappropriate. For instance, take those *huge* >'s and <'s that get used in so many expressions. Nothing like a few of them to break the appearance of a page! Seriously, though, I think the disaster that's CACM today is a product of the conflict over what CACM should "be". Is it a journal, or is it popular press? As the old commercial goes, "it's both!" Unfortunately, in trying to be both, it ends up being neither. Scholarly papers get the clip-art, fonts-a-plenty treatment to make them appear more accessible, and this very presentation can often make them appear less respectable. The CACM redesign(s) take the magazine a *long* way from the days of the black 'n blue covers, but those research papers keep showing up! That's a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your opinion about what CACM should be. However, all the parties involved in CACM ought to start talking to each other, or else we're going to be stuck with this mishmash being the "primary service" that most members receive. -- Chris Thomas (415) 969-9112 x2994 S4/7 b g+ l y+ z+ n+ o+ x-/+ a++ u v-/+ j++ thomas@sono.uucp
zs@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Zoltan Somogyi) (05/04/91)
Yet another gripe about the new CACM format: The titles of articles are often split across two pages. This is not a problem if you have the journal in front of you, but it does mean that when you photocopy an article (as I have done for my students) the first page shows only a part of the title. This partial title is often confusing (it was in the case of the article concerned). Zoltan Somogyi University of Melbourne
mendel@db.toronto.edu (Alberto Mendelzon) (05/04/91)
rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes: >So what's the phone number of ACM headquarters? 212-869-7440. -alberto.
mikeg@c3.c3.lanl.gov (M. P. Gerlek) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.230122.13004@dsd.es.com> rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes: > > In article <5862@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> > jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones) writes: > > > >All of this goes to say, ACM headquarters is responsive to complaints! > > So what's the phone number of ACM headquarters? From Thursday morning until now (Saturday morning), there's been 18 posts against the new CACM look, and 1 in favor. Not good. Should we do a straw poll, and forward the results to ACM HQ? -[mpg] mikeg@lanl.gov "...nineteen tequilas later, we had a deal: Havana goes back to the Mob, and Fidel and I would open a Kentucky Fried Chicken." PS- And I make the 19th post against the new format. So there. -- -[mpg] mikeg@lanl.gov "...nineteen tequilas later, we had a deal: Havana goes back to the Mob, and Fidel and I would open a Kentucky Fried Chicken."
sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson) (05/07/91)
Count me as one of those against the new format. I agree with every
negative thing that's been said about it so far.
Charlietxhou@mcs.drexel.edu (Xinjun Hou) (05/07/91)
In article <3045@cod.NOSC.MIL> sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson) writes: > > Count me as one of those against the new format. I agree with every >negative thing that's been said about it so far. > > Charlie Me three Xj
pintado@cui.unige.ch (Xavier Pintado) (05/07/91)
Count me Xavier Pintado Centre Universitaire d'Informatique 12, rue du Lac 1209 Geneve Switzerland pintado@cui.unige.ch PINTADO@CGEUGE51.bitnet
chuck@pluto.Harris-ATD.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/07/91)
I'm also unhappy about the new format, finding it inconsistent and
difficult to read.
I also have some complaints about the little News Bits articles in the
front. This month, we got a brief description of Unicode, a 16-bit character
standard. This is fine, but it was written for a complete computer neophyte.
I seem to recall the description as "a sequence of 16 zero and one values".
Come on! Ever hear of the word "bit"?
The first rule: Know Thy Audience. We're computing professionals. You
can use the big words with us!
--
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 Keillorvladimir@Eng.Sun.COM (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) (05/08/91)
My vote is ... NO! I have given the new format some time to grow on me, but
it's still a resounding, NO! Too hard to read. The use of non-serif fonts is
overwhelming. And why the change to three column? Two was fine as far as I
could tell.
-- Vladimir
--
==============================================================================
Vladimir G. Ivanovic Sun Microsystems, Inc
(415) 336-2315 MTV12-33
vladimir@Sun.COM 2550 Garcia Ave.
{decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax}!sun!Eng!vladimir Mountain View, CA 94043-1100
Disclaimer: I speak for myself.
==============================================================================ressler@cme.nist.gov (Sandy Ressler) (05/09/91)
It's great to see the vast majority of folks with the same opinion I've had
for months. I've also tried to be patient and hoped that the design would
settle down, but it looks like that's not happening.
Aside from the numerous problems and overall poor design I'd like
to know the history of the redesign. My main question is:
Was the redesign done by a professional graphic designer?
OR
Was the redesign done by a computer scientist that thinks he/she
is a professional designer?
OR
Was it done by committee?
The answer would be very enlightening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME: Sandy Ressler TELE: (301) 975-3549
USMAIL: National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards) INTERNET: ressler@cme.nist.gov
Bldg. 220 Rm A-127
Gaithersburg, MD 20899eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) (05/09/91)
Dennis Ahlgrim joined the CACM masthead as art director in January 1990. His name has been mentioned prominently in illustrations since the great format change. I'd guess that most of the blame for the unreadable new design can be laid on his doorstep. CACM changed its format in order to attract readers, and the only sure way to convince CACM of its mistake is to stop subscribing. Normally, readers noisily cancel their subscriptions because of _content_, not _style_, but if the Fabulous Fetzer Fiasco of September 1988 wasn't enough to turn your stomach, the new format might do the trick. You might try waiting patiently for the changing of the guard at editor. I suspect complaining won't help much. In response to earlier complaints, executive editor James Maurer politely gave readers the raspberry, writing: Thanks to readers who have commented on our redesign, however we are not quite finished. As you will see over the next few months, we will continue to refine it. (CACM, August 1990, page 5)
greg@cheers.Bungi.COM (Greg Onufer) (05/09/91)
I don't mind the new format except for the table of contents and that really thick and heavy bold font used for some section headings. Make the table of contents useful and change that ugly font... then I'll be a happy camper. Cheers!greg
pmartz@undies.dsd.es.com (Paul Martz) (05/09/91)
Everybody seems to be on the "anti new CACM format" bandwagon. Lighten up! Has everyone forgotton how sterile, boring, and unimaginative the old format was? It was such an insult to my humanity, I rarely read articles even if they interested me. This new format makes the magazine much less of a tooth-pull to look at. Now the new format isn't perfect, but how many magazine formats *are* perfect? The point, for me at least, is: it's much better than the old format, and I am glad someone finally did something about it! -- -paul pmartz@dsd.es.com Evans & Sutherland
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (05/09/91)
Add my voice to the storm of protest over CACM's new format. The Table of Contents is unreadable. The characters are too blocky and there's too little white space between lines. Professional compositors ought to have more pride in their work than to allow this to happen. Strangely, I have the opposite reaction to the typeface in the articles. It is so light I can barely make it out. I would prefer a two-or-three column justified layout with articles beginning on the right hand page. (Right hand page? So if you want to tear out the 10 pages of useful article and throw out the 120 pages of noise the title will be on an outside surface of the chunk you tear out. This process has reduced my 10 year collection of CACM to 3 inches). CACM has dreams of becoming a genral circulation magazine. They want to drop into the mindless oblivion of IEEE Computer with its meaningless graphics full of box charts labelled "input", "process", "output". But I don't read CACM because I like the pretty pictures. I read the articles. I even save them if they describe a technique I might use. The graphics go in the dumper. I wish the publishers would hold this in mind when deciding how to spend their (no, my) time and money.
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (05/09/91)
Well, I called ACM headquarters at 212-869-7440. I found them less than sympathetic. They transferred me three times in one minute, finally leaving me with the "Art Department". He claims that the table of contents will be changed in the July issue because of the number of complaints they had received. He also claimed that the new graphical look was necessary and that if the people who "designed" the CACM didn't need all those graphics he wouldn't have a job. CACM is not a journal, it is a magazine. He said there are factions that are complaining that CACM should go back to the "old ways" but that's not going to happen. He also said they had received 10 positive comments for each negative one. (Not the ratio we are experiencing, but I guess we are one of those "factions". I suppose we could change his ratio though). All in all, I think they are totally out of control. He was interested in learning of specific instances of font clashes and inappropriate typography. I suggest that anyone else who wants to complain should be prepared with specific points to complain about, because they aren't interested in hearing that you think its ugly and its mother dresses it funny.
tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) (05/10/91)
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: ... >received. He also claimed that the new graphical look was necessary and >that if the people who "designed" the CACM didn't need all those graphics he >wouldn't have a job. CACM is not a journal, it is a magazine. He said >there are factions that are complaining that CACM should go back to the "old Thanks for taking the trouble to talk to ACM. I thought of writing a letter to the editor soon after the format was changed, to complain about the change. My workload as well as the feeling that ACM would probably toss it away prevented me from doing it. Encouraged by articles such as those by Kurt (his previous one was nice and to the point too), let me add my complaints. The editors and graphics artists should take a look at some nice books such as those by Tufte (The Visual Display and Quantitative Information and his new book on visualizing information). Basic human factors of writing should help too. I bet our undergraduate classes on human factors could design a better format! I second Kurt's suggestion on starting articles on the right hand side (odd-numbered page) and having multiple columns. I prefer staggered right side (of a column) to justified columns, at least to break the monotony. (When CACM changed to staggered columns several years ago, the editor (Peter Denning, if I remember right) cited some study that showed that staggered columns are less tiring etc.) I would also recommend using fonts with serifs. Though I can't cite the appropriate references, I believe fonts with serifs are easier to read. The fonts used for the new format are very hard to read. It is abominable that ACM (with several human factors people in CHI) should take a tolerable format and mess it up. A lot more white space between lines will help too. >ways" but that's not going to happen. He also said they had received 10 >positive comments for each negative one. (Not the ratio we are experiencing, >but I guess we are one of those "factions". I suppose we could change his >ratio though). Can't believe that it is 10 to 1 for the new format. I wonder if it has something to do with the reference about job security above. :-) Has someone thought about collecting these articles (both pro and con) and mailing to the editor of CACM? It might be worth it even after they change the format (unless it is really nice and readable). >All in all, I think they are totally out of control. I agree totally. >He was interested in learning of specific instances of font clashes and >inappropriate typography. I suggest that anyone else who wants to complain >should be prepared with specific points to complain about, because they >aren't interested in hearing that you think its ugly and its mother dresses >it funny. I wonder whether I should give this as an assignment for my graduate class this summer (on effective use of interactive graphics; I talk about text since text forms an integral part of a good interface/interactive system). govind T. Govindaraj +1 404 894 3873 (voice) tg@chmsr.gatech.edu +1 404 894 2301 (fax) tg@chmsr.uucp; 128.61.3.10 School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology 765 Ferst Drive, ISyE-0205, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205, USA
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.165219.1558@tc.fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >Well, I called ACM headquarters at 212-869-7440. I found them less than >sympathetic. Somehow I don't find that surprising. >wouldn't have a job. CACM is not a journal, it is a magazine. He said Maybe that is exactly what some of us are complaining about. If we wanted a magazine we could subscribe to BYTE or PC-MAGAZINE, or even IEEE-COMPUTER. But personally I can do without another trashy magazine so overstuffed with ads that it is hard to find anything useful. This is, after all, the main publication that most members receive from ACM. It should be a source of useful information, and a way for us to keep up with what is happening in our field. It doesn't have to revert to the high level research articles of 10 years ago that many people complained about. It could at least go back to something more like the CACM of two years back. CACM used to be something I looked forward to. I would scan the table of contents to find the interesting articles. Then look over Forum to see what is being debated. Next scan over the upcoming conferences timetable. Then go back and read the interesting article, if any. Then look at the articles which might be good for me to read, even if not particularly interesting. These days I have trouble finding the table of contents, trouble finding the Forum, trouble finding the calendar. Most of the articles are of the same quality which causes me to dispatch IEEE-computer to the back of a shelf unread, and which caused me to drop my subscription to Byte. If those in HQ really want it to be a magazine, and not a journal, can't they at least model it on a magazine like Scientific American, instead of on something like PC-Magazine? >there are factions that are complaining that CACM should go back to the "old >ways" but that's not going to happen. He also said they had received 10 >positive comments for each negative one. (Not the ratio we are experiencing, >but I guess we are one of those "factions". I suppose we could change his >ratio though). Perhaps some of us thing ACM HQ is so out of touch that it is pointless to complain. >All in all, I think they are totally out of control. >He was interested in learning of specific instances of font clashes and >inappropriate typography. I suggest that anyone else who wants to complain >should be prepared with specific points to complain about, because they >aren't interested in hearing that you think its ugly and its mother dresses >it funny. Great. Right when we are looking for information on our profession we must drop everything and become experts in graphic design just so HQ will listen to our complaints. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) (05/10/91)
From article <1991May9.183407.9294@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert): > > If those in HQ really want it to be a magazine, and not a journal, can't > they at least model it on a magazine like Scientific American, instead of > on something like PC-Magazine? > The sad thing is, the recent style change in CACM was actually accompanied by the claim that they wanted to take Scientific American as a model of the level of publication they were shooting for! Furthermore, Scientific American was "re-designed" quite recently, including the design of new typefonts for their own use, and remarkably, the article they published on this indicated that one of their inspirations was Knuth's work on his Computer Modern fonts. The result was quite the opposite of what happened to CACM, where essentially every bit of Knuth's advice on typography has been consistently ignored. Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu (I admit, I've only been reading CACM for 20 years while I've been reading Scientific American for 30, so perhaps I'm prejudiced.)
mikeg@c3.c3.lanl.gov (M. P. Gerlek (hack grad student)) (05/10/91)
In article <tg.673813399@isye.gatech.edu> tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) writes: > > Has someone thought about collecting these articles (both pro and con) and > mailing to the editor of CACM? It might be worth it even after they change > the format (unless it is really nice and readable). I'm saving all the posts (pro and con) and also emailed opinions. In another week or so I'll edit it down and mail it off to ACM HQ. A few others have said they've contacted ACM, but I figger more commentary and opinion can't hurt. -[mpg] mikeg@lanl.gov "Men in trees." -- -[mpg] mikeg@lanl.gov "Men in trees."
vkk@duke.cs.duke.edu (Victor K. Kohnke) (05/10/91)
In article <tg.673813399@isye.gatech.edu> tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) writes: >Has someone thought about collecting these articles (both pro and con) and >mailing to the editor of CACM? It might be worth it even after they change Yes I have and will do so tonight (it is quite a beg file) Victor
vladimir@Eng.Sun.COM (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) (05/13/91)
I saw in a bookstore a *BEAUTIFUL* book on typography, just recently
published. It's by the former (?) director of typography at Adobe Systems,
Inc. and it's called (I think, sort of like ...) "Stone on Type" by Sumner
Stone.
This book is a work of art. There is a newletter in the middle that is
fantastically clean and legible. Don Knuth would appreciate this book.
I only wish the designers of the new CACM-look had 1/2 the style and grace
that Sumner Stone has. If they did, the CACM would be a knockout...
-- Vladimir
--
==============================================================================
Vladimir G. Ivanovic Sun Microsystems, Inc
(415) 336-2315 MTV12-33
vladimir@Sun.COM 2550 Garcia Ave.
{decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax}!sun!Eng!vladimir Mountain View, CA 94043-1100
Disclaimer: I speak for myself.
==============================================================================jqj@duff.uoregon.edu (JQ Johnson) (05/14/91)
Although I've been as disappointed as most of the posters here in the "new" CACM format, I must admit that it seems to be getting better. I spent some time today looking through the May 1991 issue, and found much less in the layout and typography to offend me than heretofore. The single biggest problem in the past couple of years has been lack of consistency; I think the designers might (?) finally be getting their style guides under control. There are still lots of typographic problems, though at least most of the body text and examples in the text are now readable. Among the things I still don't like: 1/ table of contents 2/ that ugly heavy serifed title font (e.g. "ACM FORUM" on page 21) 3/ the setting of the beginnings of articles in single-column bold with tan leading lines (e.g. p. 35). The tan lines make the text totally unreadable. 4/ that strange fixed-pitch font that is used for subtitles and authors (pp. 34, 35). Icould live with that font if it were the only typographic infelicity 5/ the various different fonts used for quotations extracted from the text. Compare p. 28, p. 96, and p. 99. A single readable font in a size only a couple of points larger than the body size should be used throughout for these sorts of things. 6/ variation in heading styles. Must greater consistency is desirable. Why are section headings in Inside Risks (p. 128) different from those in most of the articles? 7/ the wierd way some text is set (e.g. the intro to the Software Engineering special issue pp. 32-33). I can understand wanting this to look different from the articles, but it's too different, and using dingbats instead of paragraph breaks is unreadable. Bottom line is that I still tend to file unread my CACMs when they arrive (because the new format is too unpleasant to look at), but I'm willing to leaf through a few more issues in hopes that it is improving. -- JQ Johnson Director of Network Services Internet: jqj@oregon.uoregon.edu University of Oregon voice: (503) 346-1746 250E Computing Center BITNET: jqj@oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1212 fax: (503) 346-4397
chuck@pluto.Harris-ATD.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/14/91)
In article <5987@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>, jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes: > Furthermore, Scientific American was "re-designed" quite recently, including > the design of new typefonts for their own use, and remarkably, the article > they published on this indicated that one of their inspirations was Knuth's > work on his Computer Modern fonts. The result was quite the opposite of > what happened to CACM, where essentially every bit of Knuth's advice on > typography has been consistently ignored. The typeface used in Scientific American is Lucida, designed by Charles Bigelow, of Bigelow & Holmes. It was not designed specifically for Scientific American, but was designed to scale well when rendered on bitmapped devices like screens and laser printers. Particular attention was paid to the way strokes and bowls came together, to avoid ink (toner?) traps at various point sizes. I think Lucida looks quite good in Scientific American, and is a clean, readable face. -- 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
ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) (05/14/91)
I have decided to use the new CACM format next year in my "Scientific Information Processing" course as an example of bad typography and layout.
robertw@bmerh654.bnr.ca (Robert Williams) (05/14/91)
In article <282EEBA2.23279@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) writes: > I have decided to use the new CACM format next year in my "Scientific > Information Processing" course as an example of bad typography and layout. Very well, but how about some suggestions for improvement? There's no point in just saying "it's bad"! . . . Rob Williams -- Robert R. Williams Dept. 1B84, Only two things are Ph: (613) 763-2513 Bell-Northern Research Ltd., infinite, the universe Fax: (613) 763-2202 P.O. Box 3511, Station C, and human stupidity Email: robertw@bnr.ca Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7 ... Albert Einstein
ph@ama-1.ama.caltech.edu (Paul Hardy) (05/15/91)
I think non-serif fonts are fine as boldface headlines or figure captions,
but are harder to read in plain text than a serif font. The only non-serif
font I've seen that I can easily read in large doses is Optima. The change
to three columns probably encouraged the switch either to a non-serif font or
a smaller pointsize.
--Paul
--
This is my address: ph@ama.caltech.edu
This is UUCP: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!
This is my address on UUCP: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!caltech.edu!ama!ph
Any questions?
"Does Emacs have the Buddha nature?" --Paul Hardy "Yow!" --Zippyralph@laas.fr (Ralph P. Sobek) (05/29/91)
It, CACM, does not convey as well that it might contain scientific articles. It conveys much more readily a cheap tabloid format known in TV and sports magazines. The Contents page is unreadable with too much bold-face text, and way too many colors. The section titles seem way to large. At least the font is not attractive. The little insert color picture would better rather be left out or placed in the hands of some real graphics artist. Can we get some of the OLD format back again? That's my 2-bits worth. -- Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU =============================================================================== THINK: Due to IMF & World Bank policies 100 million Latin American children are living, eating, and sleeping in the streets -- Le Monde Diplomatique