| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Letters to the Editor |
Division of Abdominal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine,
1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30322
e-mail: mkalra{at}emory.edu
We read with interest the From the Editor section in the January 2006 issue of Radiology (1). There have been several promising changes in the "Gray Journal" in the past few years. However, recent alterations in the display format from sober gray journal to a more colorful gray journal were the results of the untiring efforts of the Radiology editorial office. We congratulate the editorial staff for their efforts to give our beloved gray journal a better, bolder, and brighter look.
Some positive changes deserve special mention. Front page image graphics and layout in the new issue are impressive. Categorization of the table of contents under the heading Original Research with subspecialty sections makes it easier for the readers to navigate to their interest. A black side bar at the outer margin of the opening page of each article also helps the readers in this respect. The new font size, color, and style make it easier to read the titles of different articles. We also appreciate the strip of blank space provided at the top of the text pages for making notes. The insertion of background color bars to highlight major subtitles in articles makes it easy to find relevant details at a glance and gives the text a more distinct and nicer look. Perhaps the most impressive change is in the representation of tables, with colored outline bars and highlighting of alternate rows to simplify readability of data across each row. Likewise, the clustering of component images in color boxes and the bigger font size of the figure legends give a distinctive appearance to the figures.
However, sometimes the good comes with a little bit of a compromise. Although the black strip on the spine of the cover gives the journal a distinctive look, the blue tone of the title Radiology and the volume number, issue number, and page numbers renders them less distinct on such a background. Furthermore, in profile, our "Gray Journal" loses its gray identity. The table of contents does not subcategorize original research into clinical research and experimental studies, which would help readers with varied interest and background. The boxing of the abstract with a blue background makes it somewhat difficult to read the abstract, particularly in dark ambient lighting conditions in radiology reading rooms. We also found that the box with information about author contributions and correspondence address at the right bottom of the second page of each article is distracting and interrupts the continuity and flow of text for the readers. Instead, this information could be included in the first column of the title page of each article as displayed in prior issues of the journal. Likewise, space for writing notes at the top of each text page would have been more convenient at the foot of each page. However, this space has also diminished the available text space and hence, the text font size is smaller. This may be inconvenient to many readers who are used to reading a slightly larger font in the journal. In addition, we believe that the wide highlighting bar at the top of each figure and the larger font of the figure legends may reduce the overall size of images.
In summary, the Radiology editorial office continues the fine precedence of making promising changes to the display format. However, fine-tuning of these changes on the basis of suggestions from readers may make its display more appealing.
 |
REFERENCE |
|---|
 TOP REFERENCE |
|---|
On behalf of the many individuals involved with the redesign of Radiology that debuted as the "New Gray" in January 2006, I thank Drs Namasivayam and Kalra for their complimentary comments. The final product is the result of much time and effort on the part of a number of individuals, including many who freely gave of their time at the 2004 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. A number of focus group sessions were held at the 2004 meeting to solicit input from readers of our journal—input that weighed heavily in our final decision-making process for the redesign of Radiology.
We fully expected that some of our choices would not be pleasing to all and realized that over the first several months we would be fine-tuning the new design. As Drs Namasivayam and Kalra point out, the teal color for display of some of the information on the black spine of the cover was indeed difficult to read. All information on the spine is now displayed in white, as of the February 2006 issue. We have still retained the various titles for the types of original research, including the section Experimental Studies. Drs Namasivayam and Kalra note that the intensity of the teal color in the abstracts makes it somewhat difficult to read the text and that the information relating to author contributions and correspondence, now on the second page, is distracting. Starting with the June 2006 issue, the color screens behind the abstracts were reversed, so that the darker teal is now on the left, and a lighter shade of teal accompanies the text on the right. Drs Namasivayam and Kalra also point out other items, and for that we are grateful, as we intend to collect information on those features that our readers find less desirable. If there is substantial support for such less desirable features, then we will definitely consider making changes. It is important, therefore, that all readers provide us with their input.
Again we thank Drs Namasivayam and Kalra for their comments and look forward to receiving comments from other readers so that we may fine-tune the "New Gray."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
