🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May2.115138.1323@rti.rti.org> duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes:

 What do you folks think of the new format of CACM?  I don't think it
 is appropriate for a professional journal.  I find the fonts used for
 the table of contents and article sections difficult to scan.  The
 page used to start articles look more like something in an ad, and
 thus skippable, rather than something to read.

I fully agree.  The heavy san-serif type over a dark background that
starts each article not only looks just like an ad, it is ugly and
hard to read.  The table of contents is a disaster.  The last issue
had *entire articles* in what looked like san-serif boldface!

Anybody from CACM out there listening?  CACM used to be my standard
good example of an attractive, easy-to-read technical publication; I
always found the typography clear and unobtrusive, unlike that in some
other publications in our field.  Now it's my standard example of the
other sort.  Somebody should take their desktop-publishing toys away
until they figure out how to use them.

 Steve Duncan
 duncan@rti.rti.org

Thanks for starting this thread, Steve; it needed to be said.
--
\ --Steve Savitzky--  \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \
 \ steve@advansoft.COM \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<disclaimer.h>   \
  \ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954   \        408-727-3357      \
   \__ steve@arc.UUCP _________________________________________________________