![]() ![]() We have heard your pleas, many stemming from information overload and the need to pack ever more data on to small screens. ![]() As publishers, we’ve asked how we might assist working scientists. Design as a discipline exists to solve problems, and working researchers, readers and contributors have many. But design is not solely about how something looks it is also concerned with how it works, and that understanding has never been more urgent than in the digital age. Looking back over the past 150 years of Nature, we see an aesthetic that bends with time and trends, from ornate Victorian embellishments in 1869 to stark minimalism in the late 1960s. In my view, the idea that scholarly publishing should be divorced from evidence-based applications of good visual design is perplexing. Science sorely needs best practices in visual communication as well as in information design, a mature field with quantitative methods. Some assume that an aesthetically appealing presentation signals at best a lack of priorities, and at worst a lack of rigour. ![]() Should science be ugly? This is a serious question asked by serious people at seminars. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |