🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FAIGIN.92Aug5124820@soldan.aero.org>, faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
|> On 5 Aug 92 17:29:51 GMT, cjackso@nv6 (Clay Jackson) said:

|> > In the face of this, what has been the response of the volunteers that 
|> > Dan comments have been around forever:
|> 
|> > 1)  A full time art director was hired - and the quality/readability of
|> > CACM has gone down.
|> 
|> I don't know. Constrast CACM with what it was 10 years ago (the black and blue
|> covers). I think the readability has gone up markedly. They've dropped some
|> (IMHO) useful sections, like Programming Pearls and the Case Studys, but on
|> the whole the papers selected are much more useful than issues of old. There
|> are occasional layout problems, but I don't read CACM for the layout, I read
|> it for the articles.

I have forgotten what it looked like ten years ago, but it must have been OK, 
since I considered it a benefit when I joined about then.  The last few years
have been *terrible*.  I guess deliberately hard to read covers and title
pages must be trendy journalism or something, but it took me half a minute
just to figure out what the cover says this month: "Supercomputing" if you are
having trouble  :-)  But, it has gotten better.  Three years ago, it was
far worse.  You couldn't read the table of contents at all, and a lot of
articles had background stuff that made them virtually unreadable.


The content has improved also, after taking a nosedive.  There are some
pretty interesting articles this month (August) which I am enjoying reading (!)
(Thanks go to Ken Kennedy, guest editor.)

However, the fonts, gratuitous decorations, and messy title pages are still
a problem.  The "cartoon" style which is superimposed on the magazine harms
readability  -- I'm thankful that some of it has been removed over the last
year, but there is still plenty left.  I do remember what CACM looked like
five or six years ago, and it was fine.  I wish we could get it back.


|> > For one thing, I can't convince my management to give me much
|> > release time for ACM activities, given the current level of "benefit"
|> > my employer sees.  


This is an interesting issue.  I am afraid that as competition heats up,
every company is going to cut its overhead as much as possible, and things
like ACM and IEEE are going to get cut, because they don't help the company
bottom line very much.  What ideas are there for making this sort of activity
more attractive to private companies?

|> 
|> Good point. Perhaps we need to introduce TQM into ACM: We must determine
|> exactly who it is that ACM is trying to serve, and what that customer want out
|> of ACM. What benefits does your employer want that would result in support? If
|> we start at that question, instead of guessing, perhaps we can arrive at the
|> right answer.
|> 
|> > And, having tried to change things for a number of
|> > years when I DID have management support, I'm not convinced that the
|> > sort of change that's required is even possible.
|> 
|> Change is alwasy possible. It can, however, be difficult.
|> 
|> > Anyway, here are a couple of places to start:
|> 
|> > 1)  Fix CACM - I won't bother to repeat the suggestions that have already
|> > been circulated here.
|> 
|> I truly think the "art" type changes to ACM are cosmetic. Is there a problem
|> with the articles.

I think the "art" problem is a lot more of a problem than you do.  There are
still unreadable covers, title pages, and cartoons which sometimes
take up whole pages (see, for example, pp 48-49 of the current issue),
hard to read fonts, etc etc.  Couldn't they at least confine the glitz and 
cartoons to the left facing page, so that those of us who tear out articles
to file can leave them behind?

|> 
|> > 2)  Make some REAL (financial) cuts, and STOP trying to be all things to
|> > all elements of computing.  
|> 
|> First question: where do you cut.


Actually, the thing that I would like to cut is the sanctimonious,
self-congratulatory tone that has overtaken ACM, at least in CACM, the last
few years.  ACM is a *professional society*, and exists to serve its members
and society at large.  CACM should function as a vehicle within that
framework.  But, the last few years, it seems to be trying to take on
"cosmic" proportions.  I think the subject, Computing, needs to be kept in
focus.


|> > If someone comes up with some REAL reforms, and there appears to be hope
|> > that things will get better - count me in.  Otherwise, I'll probably
|> > keep paying my dues as long as CACM is occasionally useful.
|> 
|> I do suggest you make your opinions known to your regional rep. That's the
|> best way to be heard at ACM council. 
|> 
|> Daniel
|> --
|> [W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
|> [Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org              [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
|>    "You can't be a rationalist in an irrational world. It isn't rational!"
|> 	       Dr. Rance, in Joe Orton's "What the Butler Saw"

-- 
  Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-9,     UUCP:      ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center     Internet:  lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000  Or:        lamaster@george.arc.nasa.gov 
  Phone:  415/604-1056                     #include <usenet/std_disclaimer.h>