peter@kentrox.uucp (Peter Uchytil) (05/03/91)
Well, personally, I *like* the look of CACM. Ok, I've only been in ACM for a little over a year now, so maybe I don't remember how it used to look, but I think CACM is very readable. The Table of contents is difficult to scan, I'll conceed that point no problem! Why does a technical magazine have to look sterile? I have copies of CACM and Computing Surveys in front of me. Flipping through them I find much more catching my eye in CACM. Let's take a look at an issue. I happen to have December 1990 with me (some gremlin seems to have appropriated my newer issues). Table of Contents: Fonts are hard to scan. Newstrack: Nice little graphic. Titles are mini-atricles easy to read. Pages are a different color so they are easy to find. Letters, ACM Forum: same as any other mag. Computing Perspectives: Title is small, easy to overlook, but the focus of the article "The Rise of the VLSI Processor" is big and easy to read. P.19 "Real-Time Data Acquisition at Mission Control": ok, the title is a bit flashy, but it's not hard to read. It does grab your attention. As for the rest of the article, it's very readable. Lots of good diagrams and pictures. Subsection headings are bolded. The upper right hand corner has the article title. p.33 "...Unix Utilities": same as above. Pages 36 and 37 have a very nice table outlining the results of tests on various unix systems. The other articles are the same. Page 76 has an index to CACM which again is readable. So, I guess what I don't understand is, what would you *like* to see? Remember, I'm new to CACM. What makes it so difficult to read? I'm not talking about content now, just format (that is what everyone is complaining about, right?). Pete -- Peter Uchytil | Kentrox Industries, Inc. | "Do you lead or are you led uunet!kentrox!peter | PO Box 10704 | Are you sure that you don't 1-800-733-5511 x325 | Portland, OR 97210-0704 | care" - INXS ==============================================================================
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May3.162751.14138@kentrox.uucp> peter@kentrox.uucp (Peter Uchytil) writes: >Table of Contents: Fonts are hard to scan. Fonts in general seem to be a problem in the new format. I've noticed all of the following: * They use fonts with weird proportions--too skinny, or too stretched out--a lot. This shows up mainly in titles, though at least for a while I think the figure captions were the same. (My CACM collection's at home, I can't check right now.) * The titles in general are difficult to read, especially when they put part in great huge letters and part in small letters, and have it against a colored active background. I'd prefer to see some nice bold font, with a consistent size, if they're going to put it against a busy background. * The footnotes in the current issue are nice, except for putting the code excerpts in a very heavy font which makes them stand out incredibly much. Generally, if they'd stick with fonts which had more standard proportions, I'd be happier. Oh, and the introduction to the special section was *impossible* to read this month. (OK, so I suffered through it, but the first three times I read about a sentence and my eyes started to hurt.) >What makes it so difficult to read? Inconsistent use of fonts--that's my main complaint at the moment. (They finally seem to have gotten the use of color under control, though I'll reserve judgment for a few more issues.) A few months ago, they were even setting C-heads in a larger font than B-heads (arrrrgh).... >I'm not talking about content now, just format (that is what everyone is >complaining about, right?). Yeah. See if you can dig out a CACM from early last year, maybe, to see what the format used to be like. I'm really not sure why they decided to change it. Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+----------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | "VMS Forever!" | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+----------------+
peter@kentrox.uucp (Peter Uchytil) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May9.183407.9294@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: > > These days I have trouble finding the table of contents, trouble finding >the Forum, trouble finding the calendar. > Ok, I can follow the arguements on font selection and on an over abundance of graphics, but "trouble finding the table of contents"? I just looked through CACM issues 8/90 - 5/91. The table of contents is always on page 3. There is a heading that says "Departments" and it tells where the Forum and the Calendar are. Now, that table of contents may not be printed with the best fonts mind you, but it's not like they are changing location with every issue. > Perhaps some of us thing ACM HQ is so out of touch that it is pointless to >complain. > Hey, if you don't like it, but you won't tell ACM you don't like it, don't complain. This is like several friends I have who feel it is pointless to vote, but still feel inclined to complain about the way things are run. As someone pointed out earlier, ACM is a volunteer organization. If you don't like something bad enough, volunteer to help change it. This could be as simple as really digging into an issue of CACM and detailing what you don't like and how it could be changed. Just saying, "It's ugly" or "I don't like it" doesn't mean a whole lot. Saying, "The typeface used in the table of contents" is much more helpful. > Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> > Northern Illinois Univ. > DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940 Pete -- Peter Uchytil | Kentrox Industries, Inc. | "Do you lead or are you led? uunet!kentrox!peter | PO Box 10704 | Are you sure that you don't 1-800-733-5511 x325 | Portland, OR 97210-0704 | care" - INXS ==============================================================================
seth@polari.UUCP (Seth Siegal) (05/17/91)
I have, too, have found the new format of Communications to be difficult to read. The format is too busy for my taste and a bit on the garish side. Worse, I cannot find a section of "articles to the editor" where one might find a discussion such as is taking place on this BBS. However, I do think the content has improved where I find more of interest to the practitioner than than the theoretician.