🚀 go-pugleaf

(Our news crashed in the middle of posting this, so this may go out twice.)
I'm starting this off with three quotes from the "New format of CACM"
thread to continue a slightly different issue, namely, what do we
want in a format?

<kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth)> writes:
  But I don't read CACM because I like the pretty pictures.  I read
  the articles.  I even save them if they describe a technique I might
  use.  The graphics go in the dumper.

<rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)> writes:
  I would scan the table of contents to find the interesting articles.
  Then look over Forum to see what is being debated.  Next scan over
  the upcoming conferences timetable.  Then go back and read the
  interesting article, if any.  Then look at the articles which might
  be good for me to read, even if not particularly interesting.

<mikal.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Michael brown)> writes:
  I think part of the problem people have with the CACM is not knowning
  what its purpose is.  I view the CACM as a general CS magazine for
  all members.  I think the deep, 'scholarly' articles belong in other
  journals.  CACM should (& it does) publish items that hopefully are
  of interest to all members.

Michael hits the nail on the head.  The majority of us here have a
different view of CACM from the editors.  My view is most similar to
Kurt and Neil's, in that I view CACM for what I can get out of it.
I also don't have a lot of free time to waste on browsing it, so
clarity of presentation is a must.  I treat it much like Neil, though
not since they changed the format because I find it not worth the
effort.  Neil has pointed out that Scientific American is a better
model than Byte and I agree:  I can rapidly find what interests me
in SA and even get something out of those articles that are not of
major interest.  This follows from a "breadth first" treatment of
the subject, similar to that followed by newspapers.

Here, then, is what I would like to see:

- A readable, easily scanned table of contents, possibly annotated.
- Readable (i.e. not in some bizarre font) Abstracts for all articles.
- Articles well differentiated from advertisements, so they can
  be easily found when flipping pages.
- Better use of fonts and layout.  I'm not qualified to say just
  how it should be laid out, but I think a less intrusive layout
  is needed.  One that enchances the articles rather than distracting
  from them.
- I like Kurt's idea of starting articles on the right hand side, too.
  If they want flashy graphics, they can put that on the left, as
  long as the complete title and abstract are on the right.
- I think Michael is right in that CACM articles should be of general
  interest to members, since everyone gets CACM.  This doesn't mean
  a lack of scholarship, though.  I'd like to see introductions to
  new areas as well as progress in existing areas that I don't get
  to deal with.  Obviously those in my own areas will seem simple,
  but I've always got something to learn, even in those areas.

Steve Duncan
duncan@rti.rti.org