mikal.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Michael brown) (05/10/91)
Actually I like the format of the CACM. 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. As for the change in format, it was needed to bring the magazine up to date. I don't have any trouble reading it. Michael R Brown Student member at Florida Atlantic University mikal.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu
eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au (05/10/91)
In article <528o21w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu>, 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. OK, can somebody tell me: 1. Where does the ACM now publish the sort of thing which used to be in the CACM? 2. Is there a mechanism that lets me drop my CACM subscription and get that other journal instead? IMHO, formed after being a member of a number of different professional organisations, a "magazine for all members" has just one real virtue: it lightens my reading load in that I don't have to open it before throwing it in the rubbish bin. Unfortunately, I haven't yet accumulated enough experience with the new look CACM to judge whether it's yet in that category. One thing which *is* already clear is that the decision is complicated by uncertainties over whether any given page is the start of a new article, a continuation of the one I'm trying to skip over, or a full-page advertisement. On the positive side: this is really great stuff for a dentist's waiting room. :-( ) Peter Moylan eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
ed@titipu.meta.com (Edward Reid) (05/11/91)
In article <1991May10.163453.10091@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes: > > OK, can somebody tell me: > 1. Where does the ACM now publish the sort of thing which used to > be in the CACM? First, a lot of it is still in CACM. The fact is that many of the best articles are referred to CACM from the other journals, and published in CACM. But there seem to be some people who remember a "golden age" of CACM which never existed. CACM has published many excellent articles in its life, but it has been a long life. The density of excellence has never been great. In large part, that is because in computer science it is still difficult to judge value before publication. The density of excellence in computer science generally is not high. Second, a lot of it is no longer written. When TOPLAS and TOCS were announced, I rejoiced: more of what I liked to read. I subscribed to each for about two years before realizing that the amount of interesting material had not increased, only the number of words. I think all the Transactions should be abolished. They exist for the publish-or-perish system. SIGPLAN Notices, CAN, and other SIG pubs suffered also, because what was being published unrefereed could now be published refereed, earning more brownie points and covering more pages more pretentiously. Now I look forward to LOPLAS. I will probably be disappointed again. What is life but hope? > 2. Is there a mechanism that lets me drop my CACM subscription and get > that other journal instead? > > IMHO, formed after being a member of a number of different professional > organisations, a "magazine for all members" has just one real virtue: it > lightens my reading load in that I don't have to open it before throwing > it in the rubbish bin...... > > Peter Moylan eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au > The Transaction journals lighten my reading load. Due to their dilute content, I don't even have to bother subscribing. The SIG newsletters remain ACM's best publications. Edward Reid (8-}> eel: ed@titipu.meta.com snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
objtch@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Goodall) (05/16/91)
mikal.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Michael brown) writes: [...] >As for the change in format, it was needed to bring the magazine >up to date. I don't have any trouble reading it. Sorry folks, I think that a full page of fat black type that says: MINIMAL SPACE, AVERAGE LINEAR TIME DUPLICATION DELETION Is over-the-top. Give me a gently flashier version of Scientific American's layout any time. The artists have gone crazy, and forgotten about readability. Bye, -- Peter Goodall - Smalltalk Systems Consultant - objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au ObjecTech Pty. Ltd. - Software Tools, Training, and Advice 162 Burns Bay Rd, LANE COVE, NSW, AUSTRALIA. - Phone/Fax: +61 2 418-7433
jmason@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) (05/16/91)
In article <objtch.674377844@extro> objtch@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Goodall) writes: > >Sorry folks, >I think that a full page of fat black type that says: > > MINIMAL > SPACE, > AVERAGE > LINEAR > TIME > DUPLICATION > DELETION > >Is over-the-top. Give me a gently flashier version of Scientific >American's layout any time. The artists have gone crazy, and forgotten >about readability. Agreed. And the silly little checkerboard lines at the top of some of the pages are annoying. The table of contents uses too many colors, and the entries are not separated by any whitespace. Most of the tables and digrams are places badly and so clutter the articles. Furthermore, the tables have too much color, so they distract you from the text fo the article. The quotations lifted from the text are too colorful, or in W W AAA Y Y too W W A A Y Y W W AAAAA Y L A R G E W W W A A Y W W A A Y t y p e (see what I mean? :-). The title pages for the article, which contain nothing but a full page of graphics, are annoying. What's worse, the first page of the actual article *does not* contain the title, let alone an abstract. The text of the article does not consistently start on the correct (right-hand) side of the page. Those really big, really low-contrast letters, with type on top of them (pp 26-27 of April 91) are really annoying. The constant change of fonts (p 112, then p 113 of April) is ugly. The ENTIRE PARAGRAPH of bold on p113 is bad, despite the fact that this non-seriffed already-too-wide font makes bold not very visible. About fonts: Ask Borland. They used the most readable font in CACM, on the back-cover obnoxious ad. Or look in Computing Surverys. A good Times Roman -- very readable. But what *really* makes CACM unreadable, worse than *all* of the above, is the *glossy paper*. I have a great deal of trouble reading *anything* if there is glare reflecting in my face from the glossy paper. Computer Communication Review manages to use glossy-feel paper with low glare. Computing Surveys does not use glossy paper. CACM does not need to try for a Scientific American look. A Computing Surveys look (sans the 7 x 10 size and the table of contents on the cover) would be GREAT. Computing surveys displays a refreshing *lack* of color (the only color is on the cover), a *small* selection of fonts, all readable, page numbers at the top, article titles in a *sane* font right next to them, and almost *no* use of fonts more than twice or less than 2/3 the size of the base font. And *I WANT PROGRAMMING PEARLS BACK* ! Maybe it will becomce a regular column in Computing Surverys, where I will be able to read it. :-) Jamie ... Segmentation fault (core dumped) Written On Thursday, May 16, 1991 at 08:52:28am EDT P.S. It's may 16th and I still have not received my May CACM. Maybe this is a sign that they delayed production to iron out some of the sillyness we have been complaining about here. We shall see.
dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) (05/17/91)
jmason@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) writes: > >P.S. It's may 16th and I still have not received my May CACM. You poor dear! Over here in Europe, we poor sods without the cash for airmail postage usually get 2-3 CACMs in the same week - many months old. I got February and March at the beginning of May. Need to wear sunglasses to work with two of those stupid glossies on the desk. I, too, want my dear old *readable* CACM with Programming Pearls back!!! -- Debora Weber-Wulff snail: FU Berlin, ZI Fachdidaktiken, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, W-1000 Berlin 33 email: weberwu@inf.fu-berlin.de, dww@math.fu-berlin.de