Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ns-mx!pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Re: New format of CACM
Message-ID: <5862@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 3 May 91 14:44:32 GMT
References: <1991May3.125722.10073@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Lines: 22

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