SIGAPL_STEERING Archives

ACM SIGAPL Steering List

sigapl_steering@ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Robert G. Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:57:56 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:13:04 +0000, Michael J Kent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Not ugly, sort of standard unimaginative graphic design;

We gotta start somewhere.. between the starkness of the signature character
and the busy professionalism of a recent editors cover productions....

>(unlike Bob) I can't read anything APL-ish into it.

We often see what we want to see. I see APL in everything, of course.
I even see other APL interpretations (so to speak) in all this.

>Somebody want to explain why, in the middle of a struggle
>to keep the SIG afloat, we are even looking at this?

I'll take a shot at it.

One of the things any "revival" effort suffers from is the lag between
the time a revival effort gets off the ground and the time it is really
appreciated and understood by the membership as a whole. With luck, that
can be measured in a few months, but more typically is can take 18-24
months, or even longer. Anything we can do to shake off the stigma of 
"the old SIGAPL" is a Good Thing. While I would agree that we need to 
deliver substance, it is a psychological boost to chage the packaging
from time to time. If there isn't any change, this can look silly, but
if there is something new, it tends to confirm and strengthen the sense
that change is in progress.

I beleive we can all agree that the comments we've seen so far indicate
that the readership HAS noticed real progress in Quote-Quad. My own view
is that Manuel has done a fabulous job of getting QQ back on schedule,
more importantly making it clear to the readership that this is what HAS
HAPPENED. A change in the cover (almost ANY change) tends to consolidate
and amplify the legitimacy of the change. The notion that "we're under 
new and better management" is confirmed by redecorating.

Somehow I don't recall Manuel asking for our collective approval in making
this change, and I'm sure that he would reconsider or offer another idea
if this layout is met with universal disapproval by the EC. However, he is
acting well within his domain to redesign things from time to time, and 
the very fact reminds everyone that we care enough about our newsletter
to freshen it up in ways besides what is set in the type.

Maybe we'll have ANOTHER design next year, and the year after. Maybe we
can awakn our readers by holding a contest. Maybe we keep trying to im-
prove things, and that's reflectd in the dynamism of the cover from time 
to time. The important thing is that we keep it coming on a regular 
basis (listen up, ghosts of past QQ editors, present or not, self included),
and that we never forget that substance and timeliness is more important 
than format (listen up, other ghosts). 

So our attempts at revival have a psychological and visual component. If
anything, I'm the stick in the mud, thinking that the website needs a
really complete facelift.....

Manuel, shal we coordinate graphics?

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---

ATOM RSS1 RSS2