[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE : DRAFT recommendations v1.2
- To: "john richard helliwell" <[email protected]>,"Howard Flack" <[email protected]>,"Sydney Hall" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE : DRAFT recommendations v1.2
- From: "Michael Glazer" <[email protected]>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:06:11 +0100
- Cc: <[email protected]>, "Ulrich Mueller" <[email protected]>,"Mois Aroyo" <[email protected]>,"John R.Helliwell" <[email protected]>,"Helen Berman" <[email protected]>,"Nicola Ashcroft" <[email protected]>,"Howard Einspahr" <[email protected]>,"Brian McMahon" <[email protected]>
Dear Syd I have not joined in the recent discussion lately because I am away on holiday and this internet connection is too slow to write too much. I have to agree with John Helliwell about the need to keep open the possibility of paper (could this be a generation thing in which old farts find reading directly from a screen difficult?). regarding the tabular presentation I managed to take a look at the Knovel tables and these are quite impressive. I think that something like this would be very useful to implement: the sort of data we are interested in in crystallography is ideally suited to such presentation. It would be nice to have for example a table of elements from wghich one cqn derive all the atom specific data e.g/ absorption. Mike Glazer ---------------------------------------- -------- Message d'origine-------- De: john richard helliwell [mailto:[email protected]] Date: mer. 27/07/2005 09:50 �: Howard Flack; Sydney Hall Cc: [email protected]; Ulrich Mueller; Mois Aroyo; John R.Helliwell; Helen Berman; Nicola Ashcroft; Michael Glazer; Howard Einspahr; Brian McMahon Objet : Re: DRAFT recommendations v1.2 Dear Syd, I acknowledge safe receipt of your draft recommendations and Howard's elaborations. Whilst I agree obviously with International Tables being online as essential, and urgently needed, I find myself struggling to agree with the implications of the 'unanimous view....that use of print-on-paper will rapidly decline in the next decade.' specifically this begs the question ;- decline to zero? The suggestion I offer then is that perhaps short print versions should be allowed for in IUCr's planning of the various IT titles along the lines of the teaching edition of Volume A. This would retain flexibility and allow the non-tabular data type of content to be printed (but with examples of tabular data still included) eg in the way that Howard has suggested ie according to demand. Flexibility of approach is required I believe because I think there is a very significant risk in the recommendations of assuming that the paperless office will be 95% of researchers' behaviours in a very short timescale. I may be old fashioned but my office is definitely not paperless yet [and with not much sign of abatement either]. Rather the experience I have is a wider range of information availablities but where paper is definitely still very much an option one uses. Greetings to all, John Howard Flack <[email protected]> wrote: > though 1(c) > may be seen as a bit too prescriptive. Instead how about: The maintenance of print-on-paper volumes of IT is a matter of market demand. A switch from bulk lithograph printing to digital printing to print-on-demand will enable smaller numbers of volumes to be printed and warehoused, but with an increased unit production cost and selling price. Timely decisions will need to made on this matter. John R Helliwell Professor of Structural Chemistry, The University of Manchester; Joint Appointee with CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory; Editor-in-Chief Acta Crystallographica published by IUCr. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
- Prev by Date: Re: DRAFT recommendations v1.2
- Next by Date: Re: DRAFT recommendations v1.2
- Prev by thread: ITonline; some words offered on risk
- Next by thread: DRAFT recommendations v1.2
- Index(es):

