duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) (05/13/91)
(Our news crashed in the middle of posting this, so this may go out twice.) I'm starting this off with three quotes from the "New format of CACM" thread to continue a slightly different issue, namely, what do we want in a format? <kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth)> writes: 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. <rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)> writes: 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. <mikal.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Michael brown)> writes: I think part of the problem people have with the CACM is not knowning what its purpose is. I view the CACM as a general CS magazine for all members. I think the deep, 'scholarly' articles belong in other journals. CACM should (& it does) publish items that hopefully are of interest to all members. Michael hits the nail on the head. The majority of us here have a different view of CACM from the editors. My view is most similar to Kurt and Neil's, in that I view CACM for what I can get out of it. I also don't have a lot of free time to waste on browsing it, so clarity of presentation is a must. I treat it much like Neil, though not since they changed the format because I find it not worth the effort. Neil has pointed out that Scientific American is a better model than Byte and I agree: I can rapidly find what interests me in SA and even get something out of those articles that are not of major interest. This follows from a "breadth first" treatment of the subject, similar to that followed by newspapers. Here, then, is what I would like to see: - A readable, easily scanned table of contents, possibly annotated. - Readable (i.e. not in some bizarre font) Abstracts for all articles. - Articles well differentiated from advertisements, so they can be easily found when flipping pages. - Better use of fonts and layout. I'm not qualified to say just how it should be laid out, but I think a less intrusive layout is needed. One that enchances the articles rather than distracting from them. - I like Kurt's idea of starting articles on the right hand side, too. If they want flashy graphics, they can put that on the left, as long as the complete title and abstract are on the right. - I think Michael is right in that CACM articles should be of general interest to members, since everyone gets CACM. This doesn't mean a lack of scholarship, though. I'd like to see introductions to new areas as well as progress in existing areas that I don't get to deal with. Obviously those in my own areas will seem simple, but I've always got something to learn, even in those areas. Steve Duncan duncan@rti.rti.org
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May13.144014.9051@rti.rti.org> duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes: >I'm starting this off with three quotes from the "New format of CACM" >thread to continue a slightly different issue, namely, what do we >want in a format? > ><kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth)> writes: > ... ><rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)> writes: > ... ><mikal.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Michael brown)> writes: > ... Since you quote me, and my comment that CACM should be modelled after Scientific American, let me add a few comments: Firstly, what do I get out of Scientific American? SA typically has about 6 articles, plus a few features. Sometimes they have a special topics issue, with the articles related. Most issues are not special topics. When I pick up SA, after scanning the table of contents, I usually turn first to "Science and the Citizen". This gives a relatively thorough review of important recent developments in science. Next I look at the articles that interest me. In some issues there are none. In some there are two or three. I would guess that on the average there is about one really interesting article per issue, and perhaps another 2 worth skimming through, but not worth reading in detail. Coming back to CACM, I would be very happy if there were one solid interesting article per issue. That would be a huge improvement. Both before the new format, and with the new format, the average has been way below that. More importantly, something akin to "Science and the Citizen", but more specific to computers, would be highly welcome. But it should be at a level more comparable to the "Science and the Citizen" than to the recent developments columns in Byte, PC-Magazine, etc. If CACM could meet these two requirement, keep ACM Forum as more than just a letters to the Editor, and keep its calendar -- and if the format could be a little less unpleasant -- I think they would have a real winner. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
ed@titipu.meta.com (Edward Reid) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May13.163652.20481@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: > > Firstly, what do I get out of Scientific American? > > When I pick up SA, after scanning the table of contents, I usually > turn first to "Science and the Citizen". This gives a relatively > thorough review of important recent developments in science..... > > Coming back to CACM, .......... > > More importantly, something akin to "Science and the Citizen", but more > specific to computers, would be highly welcome. But it should be at a level > more comparable to the "Science and the Citizen" than to the recent > developments columns in Byte, PC-Magazine, etc. > Come on! "Science and the Citizen" presents a few entertaining highlights from recent developments in science. But if you think it is a thorough review, you are sadly misinformed about the state of science. Read the news sections of Nature and Science -- which will bring you about 30 news articles a week instead of the 5 or 6 a month you get in Scientific American -- and you will get a strong sense that even then you are only getting a quick flashover. I fear your perspective needs broadening. But there is indeed value in entertaining highlights, and I support your suggestions for adding this to CACM. In theory this is already in place in the NEWSTRACK column, which at present is disgustingly low-level (e.g. the phrase from the May column "the proposed code would represent letters and symbols by a sequence of 16 zeroes and ones instead of eight..."), appallingly brief (11 items in 2 pages), and contains no references, which is absolutely unacceptable in a publication intended for a scientifically literate audience. Edward Reid (8-}> eel: ed@titipu.meta.com snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330