🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19920731164123CUSGLAT@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> you write:
>Can I possibly be the only person who has noticed
>that the Communications of the ACM, after the layout
>changes, is downright ugly?

No, we've mentioned it before.  The first issues after the redesign were
really embarassing -- obvious design mistakes that you'd know about after
reading one of those "design for desktop publishing" books.

In recent issues it's gotten somewhat better -- more white space so you
can tell the table of contents from the ads, though it's still
considerably too gimmicky for my tastes, and contains far too much large
heavy bold type which I find hard to read.  I still have to say that both
the old design, for all that it was boring, was far more elegant,
attractive, and readable.

There must be ACM members who know something about magazine design.
Perhaps the publications staff could ask for a knowledgable volunteer or
two to help them get their design into shape.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl