LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CHI-WEB Archives


CHI-WEB Archives

CHI-WEB Archives


CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CHI-WEB Home

CHI-WEB Home

CHI-WEB  March 2002, Week 3

CHI-WEB March 2002, Week 3

Subject:

Summary - Using Italics on a Website (long)

From:

Sally Cohen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sally Cohen <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:24:51 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (360 lines)

Yesterday I asked the list if there were any sources to dissuade someone
from using all Italics on their web applications.  I received several good
responses.  I got a real kick out of everyone's righteous indignation!

Several people asked me if there was some misunderstanding here because no
one with any sense would suggest using italics.  As I understand it, the
suggestion was made by someone with no real design or usability experience
who feels the need to "make their mark" on the design.  Dangerous, huh?

If I've learned anything it's that I should never be surprised by bad
designs and bad design ideas.  There are plenty of 'em out there.  Here's
just another example.

At any rate, here are the responses.

Thanks for all your help.

-Sally

----------------------------------------------------------
This is not a joke?

Particularly on low to medium resolution screens that do not anti-alias
their type, italics are extremely difficult to read as lines do not render
smoothly.

Any typography manual (I can't find my 'Elements of Typographic Style',
but I have others) will identify italics to be used 'for emphasis' only.
None suggest or even recommend using it as full body text. I can't find
anything that forbids it, but this strikes me as a fairly self evident
truth that most don't feel is necessary to point out.

On another note, some typefaces forgo the word 'italics' and use 'oblique'
  instead. A definition of oblique (note the second meaning):
Main Entry:     1oblique
Pronunciation:  O-'blEk, &-, -'blIk; military usually I
Function:       adjective
Etymology:      Middle English oblike, from Latin obliquus
Date:   15th century
1 a : neither perpendicular nor parallel : INCLINED b : having the axis
not perpendicular to the base <an oblique cone> c : having no right angle
<an oblique triangle>
2 a : not straightforward : INDIRECT; also : OBSCURE b : DEVIOUS,
UNDERHANDED
3 : situated obliquely and having one end not inserted on bone <oblique
muscles>
4 : taken from an airplane with the camera directed horizontally or
diagonally downward <an oblique photograph>

--------------------------------------------

no, but there are lots of references to show it's less readable --
even in print media, we don't recommend using italics very often. we
"read" by recognizing word shape -- italics lends words a different,
unfamiliar shape - which is why it is not recommended for large
blocks of text in print. on the screen, it's not recommended because
at 72 ppi, we don't have the ability to render the type well.


here are some styleguides:

<http://www.une.edu.au/online-info/style/intro.htm>
- Strictly limit use of Italics to aid readability.

<http://www.cdc.gov/od/hissb/docs/uisg-writing1.pdf>
- The preferred way to emphasize text online is to make it bold.



Article:
<http://www.design-for-all.org/magazine/main_accesible_information.html>
Accessible information - on the net and in print

--------------------------------------

Unfortunately, I don't have any hard research in front of me at the
moment (although I'm sure five minutes with Google could yield something
useful).

However, if anecdotal evidence is useful, simply point out that if
italic text were more readable, then all books, newspapers and magazines
would be printed in italic text. In reality, italic text is less redable
than standard typefaces for a few reasons: one, people do not read
angled text particularly well; two, convention has been established that
italics are used to call out something for emphasis; three, italic
typefaces typically lack serifs, and there is plenty of research has
shown that seriffed type is easier to read than sans serif.

-------------------------------------------

I just now found this on the IBM website in their usability area. Even
though the section is talking about emphasizing key concepts, it does state
why italics should not be used. Hope this helps.


<excerpt>http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-writ/?dwzone=usabi
lity
Emphasize key concepts
Help your readers scan for key concepts by emphasizing important
information.

You can emphasize by using bold or colored text, or by highlighting the text
with a different background color. But don't use italics for emphasis
because italics are difficult to read on a computer monitor. There are just
not enough pixels to render italics clearly.

Make sure that emphasized keywords are visually distinct from hypertext
links. If you use the standard underlined blue for unvisited links and
purple for visited links, use a different color and style for emphasized
keywords.

-----------------------------------------------------

I came across the following the other day:

--->%---
Because text in italics is not easy to read on screen, it is better to avoid
having long sections of italicized text. Therefore, as quotations can be
quite long, don't put them in italics.
--->%---
_The Web Content Style Guide_, Gerry McGovern, Rob Norton and Catherine
O'Dowd, Financial Times / Prentice Hall 2002, p.185

This is a rather large generalisation, but, with a few caveats, I agree. At
typical body text sizes on the internet, i.e. 10px-12px size text (serif and
sans-serif), this is true. At those sizes text is aliased, and there is not
sufficient resolution to properly render the slight italic angle, making for
characters that are more visually noisy than their non-italic equivalents.

The larger the font size, the less truth in this statement.

I'm not familiar with the assertion your friend refers to. If someone has
claimed that italics are more readable than normal text, this almost
certainly referred to print, not screen typography. But I find it extremely
dubious as a blanket rule.
--------------------------------

Tell them to just look at it! Typography is terrible in browsers, and
unless they're making the text big, it'll just be ugly. Most sites seem to
use sans serif fonts, which aren't all that attractive in italics, anyway.

I don't think italics beats Roman text on paper, either, although I haven't
seen any studies.

-------------------------------------------------------

That's the first I've heard of someone suggesting that italics are more
readable than plain text! I'm not a classically-trained designer but I bet
that one of those on this list will be able to tell you why this is a bad
idea from a type design perspective.

For on-screen display research, I would refer you to
http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/AHNCUR.html, a study that evaluates
readability of various type faces, styles and colors on various backgrounds.
This study found that "Although word style shows some interaction with other
variables, generally plain word style is faster than italicized word style."
and "Plain word style (x=16052.53) was still significantly faster than
italicized (x=17025.69; F (1,20)=5.22, p<.03)" (reaction time to stimuli was
used as a measure of readability). It should be noted that interactions were
found between type face, color and style, so, with appropriate foreground
and background color and type face choices, a readable italicized
presentation could probably be found.

The method browsers use to generate italicized text should also be
considered. Browsers donšt actually display *italic* text - they display
*oblique* text, which is just normal text tilted. This should actually be
less readable than italicized text, since italicized faces are specifically
designed to be readable despite being displayed at an angle.

-------------------------


"Italics : Avoid setting large blocks of text in italics because the
readability of italicized text, particularly at screen resolutions, is much
lower than in comparably sized roman text."

The above para is taken from the book, "Web Style Guide" by Patrick Lynch &
Sarah Horton (page 90).

---------------------------------------------------------

Yikes.  She doesn't need to cite sources.  Just tell her to sit 5-10 people
down in front of HTML pages written in all italic and record their
responses.  Make sure this "someone" in her company is sitting with
them.

After witnessing that, citations won't be necessary.

--------------------------------

I don't have any references, but thought maybe it would be helpful if you
had an e-mail from someone who is HORRIFIED at the italics proposal. In our
style guide at Genetic Health a hard and fast rule was no italics, ever.
They are VERY hard to read on the web! Isn't it just obvious?

-----------------------------

I'm not sure that one can say anything interesting about ALL italic
vs. roman fonts in general. It would depend a lot on the individual
font. I've read Renaissance books printed in italic fonts which were a
joy to read. OTOH I've never seen a digital italic font which was a joy to
read.

You can however find lots of texts that say that italic is harder to
read.

And here's a page which explains why italics are harder on computer screens:

http://www.goshen.edu/communication/comm326/design/typography.shtml#rule4.5

The best way I can imagine to answer this question is to do some
standard readbility tests using the two fonts in question.

---------------------------

Italics? Wow, that is an incredibly bad decision that is about to be made.
I've
developed a number of styleguides for corporate intranets and one of the
rules
that I have always included is that the use of italics on the web should be
kept to an absolute minimum.

As for ammo, try these:

Web Usability Bill of Rights
http://www.webword.com/moving/wubor.html
"11. Be clear and precise. Use headings and boldface to orient me. Avoid
italics; they are hard to read on my screen. Don't use ambiguous links. A
link
is only useful to me if I know where it will take me. "

Styleguide for text presentation
http://www.spiderpro.com/pr/prstgm001_txt.html
"Text in italic is hard to read on a screen. The resolution of a screen just
isn't capable to present italics without distorting them slightly.
This is even more noticeable if you use a small font.
So don't use italics for larger portions of your text. "

Web Style
http://www.upenn.edu/computing/web/webdev/style/page/visualtyp.html
"Most italics set lighter in value than the regular, or roman, version of
the
same typeface, so they are not good for adding emphasis to passages longer
than
a few words, unless the text is bolded as well as italicized. The onscreen
letterspacing of HTML italics is so poor, however, that they are often
completely illegible at any but the largest sizes (they print correctly,
however). Italics are a poor choice for headings or callouts unless bolded."

User-Centered Design and Web Development
http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/articles/ucd%20_web_devel.html
"Italics are hard to read online. "

Text design basics
http://www.fc.peachnet.edu/facultystaff/irc/webdesign/textdesi.html
"Avoid italics; italics are poorly rendered on screen because of the
curves."

Content Design Guidelines
http://comps.cdgsolutions.com/cdgsolutions/usability/guide_content_design.ht
m
"Italics are difficult to read on the web. If you must use them, do so very
sparingly. "

-----------------------------------------

Santa Rosa Junior College (California) offers the following information, but
I don't know what their backup research is on it:
http://www.santarosa.edu/access/checklist/example3.html

Xcellent Marketing addresses your issue specifically (italics for an entire
text block) in this link:
http://www.xcellentmarketing.com/graphic2.html

John Horner goes even farther and specifically addresses use of italics on
Web pages:
http://johnhorner.net/articles/writingwellfortheweb.html

Goshen College (Goshen, Indiana, USA) has an **excellent** section on Web
typography, addressing this issue and many more:
http://www.goshen.edu/communication/comm326/design/typography.shtml for
general typography issues, and
http://www.goshen.edu/communication/comm326/design/typography.shtml#rule4.5
specifically for the issue of onscreen italics and why they're a bad idea in
excess.

A general Web-readability article from PC Magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%253D1486%2526a%253D20105,00.asp


-----------------------------------------------------------

Good God!
How many times have I answered this question?
Italic text is one of the easiest blunders related to on-screen
un-readability of text to avoid, and yet many people still act like the
screen is made of paper!
Begin by running a simple test yourself with a handful of users.
Test how easily and quickly they can read a paragraph of Verdana VS. Times
Italic or even Arial Italic. Do this in 4 different sizes. Do this with HTML
text VS. Graphic text.
Now, Test performance for a whole page, with a masthead, body section and
navigation bar elements, all in italics.
The results should show what we've known for some time.
1. In all cases Upright (Normal) text is 2-3 times more readable that the
same face in Italics.
2. On-screen Italicized text below 8 points is totally unreadable.
3. Due to how a screen draws text ( with square pixels ) italicized text
occupies more file space and is more suceptable to jaggies than it's Normal
Counterpart.
4. Even in the print world, Italicization is only used for emphasis in
CONTRAST to text that most often than not is normal orientation. Typically,
it's used as a reference, headline or to emphasis (in place of quotation).
5. Italicization is high on my list of heuristic "no-nos", including >
centered text alignment, sur-printing of white text on large black
backgrounds to mention but a few.

------------------

I can't find a specific citation, although slower readability of
italics is conventional wisdom. Some resources that may help are:

 From <http://www.wpdfd.com/wpdtypo.htm>:
"Italic fonts are best avoided. They are completely at odds with the
constraints of a square pixel grid and will almost always look awful,
but especially so at small sizes."


http://depts.washington.edu/trio/train/howto/site/design/typography.shtml
They explicitly recommend against all italics

http://www.digital-web.com/resources/typography.shtml
Typography resources including Listservs

http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/
More resources

Maybe your friend could mockup some alternate pages with and without
italics to show differences. There may be other amateur all-italic
websites that may be useful to demo also.

-------------------------------------------

ammunition...I can think of a better use for the ammunition
for that person :))

italics are NOT more readable on the web...this sounds mad...
I can't believe anybody would say that...are you sure that there
isn't some misunderstanding?

http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/AHNCUR.html
and scroll down [1/2 page] to the results section

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Tip of the Day: Quote only what you need from earlier postings
               About CHI-WEB: http://www.sigchi.org/web/
         Vacations, holidays and other subscription changes:
             http://www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html#vacations
    --------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 4
November 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
September 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
December 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 2
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 5
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 3
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 5
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 5
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 5
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 5
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1
January 1997, Week 5

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager