anonymous blogger (Jan-Christoph perhaps?) Mark Vanderbeeken (thanks, Steve) seems to like the paper version, although I’ve not seen that. The web presence is a bit of a disappointment however — it feels clunky, flattened and shallow both in terms of IA/layout and in terms of content you can access without a paid-for ACM digital library login. (And when you do, the typeface they’ve used in the PDFs is really hard to read on-screen, unless there’s just something wrong with my eyes today.)
The home page currently features no less than six “click here” hyperlinks, including one for the table of contents which is in the bottom right of the page. It’s probably more than 10 years since I complained about such laziness, but I see that Nielsen was still rapping knuckles over it in 2005. Let’s see if they’ve changed this by the time the next web usability special issue comes up…
The site has comments and stuff, but you can’t help but feel that this was a missed opportunity to do something brave and innovative and push some boundaries in terms of what on-line discourse about research and practice might be like.