If this is in the wrong forum, I apologize!

When the E&T got its present layout some years ago (I forget when), did anybody actually ASK the readers what they thought of the layout to be adopted?

Of all the magazines I read or browse in a month, say, which typically include the New Scientist, Steam Railways, Practical Classics and Guitarist Magazine, I'm afraid to say that E&T definitely has the worst layout ever!

Take the so-called Page Plan page. Whoever thought that this incomprehensible mismatch of arrows and squares could replace a Contents page?

Take the World News page. Another jumble of squares crammed with text. In fact, I believe one issue a while back had the colours so mismatched (was it black on blue, or vice versa? I don't remember precisely, just my reaction to it!) that apart from the layout, it was totally unreadable.

Take any article of length--in the current issue, my magazine is open at the moment in the Debate section, p26/27. Two pages of three columns each with closely spaced text like a wall of words with no spaces between paragraphs. You've really got to WANT to read the articles to put the effort in to read them.

It's almost as if the magazine is constantly trying to push across too much information in too small a space! Maybe it was always thus. (I don't have any back issues from the seventies so I can't say with certainty.)

Surely I'm not the only IET member who thinks that the E&T magazine has a serious readibility problem? Look at any of the four magazines I mentioned above, or indeed others in a magazine shop's racks, and see how easy it is to read those magazines. Then come back to E&T. If E&T were on sale in the shops, there would be zero sales!

Do we engineers not deserve a decent magazine to read about our chosen profession? Come on, E&T, please adopt a better layout! If you can't design a decent layout yourself, then copy the New Scientist layout. That works for me!

I was sorry to hear that you are disatisfied with the design in E&T. We have asked members about this and tried to incorporate their feedback. For instance we got a strong perference for the current grid style contents page over a more traditional layout. Readers also asked for a more graphical representation of information and we have tried to reflect this.
As we aim to continually develop and improve we'll look at the other titles you mention.
Best regards
Amanda

-------------------------
Amanda Weaver
Publishing Director
The IET
tel: +44 1438 765574
e-mail: aweaver@theiet.org

Well said DocJon.

The Contents page of E&T is just impossible to "visually scan". However, it is really no loss. On the occasions I've actually looked through the page I have found nothing that is engineering and nothing that is technology so it goes directly on a pile until the annual clear out.

On the train the other day I had a thought about how many devices there are today for which I have no idea how they really work. (Like, can I explain it to a youngster) This, for me, is serious and I'm sure it wouldn't have happened with the magazines that we received previously. Articles in E&T are so low tech as to be useless for serious study.

That's a personal opinion. Anyone (other than publishing staff) can feel free to put me back on track if you wish.

-------------------------
Mike Wrigley
Past Chairman, French Network