🚀 go-pugleaf

> >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