Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!rschwart From: rschwart@paul.rutgers.edu (Bob Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.org.acm Subject: Re: Communications Message-ID: Date: 17 Jun 91 15:45:50 GMT References: <794@seqp4.UUCP> <1991Jun16.160625.27644@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> Distribution: usa Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 29 > >I think it has become over-designed. I prefer the way it looked ten > >years ago. As a professional journal it shouldn't need all kinds of > >glitz. It's one thing to make things "colorful" and not-boring, but > >I think it has gone down hill. Most of the other ACM members I talk to > >at work seem to make similar comments. > > I agree. What can we effectively do to get them to change to a more > professional format? Even just a small thing like changing the overly bold, squat or narrow typefaces to being merely somewhat bold, squat or narrow would be an improvement. Reading the Calendar of Events and the Contents would be instantly easier. I guess they are trying to enliven CACM with layout and design, but they need to employ more restraint to avoid distracting from the content. Fancy borders, two full pages of boldfaced text with no paragraph indentations, pages with dark blue or red backgrounds, and letters so big and tall that they are difficult to read do NOT make CACM more "accessible" or more "like a magazine." Take a look at IEEE-CS publications, or real magazines, for that matter. It is embarassing, in this age of desktop publishing and increased general interest and awareness of document design, to see ACM's flagship publication go off the deed end. It reinforces the stereotype that most computer folks can't be trusted to have good design sense (except for code). -- Bob Schwartz