An editor's top six pet peeves

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

A subscriber — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:23:14 GMT

Completely off-topic.

I just got my April issue of MSDN Magazine.

It used to be protected by a plastic bag and without any kind of sticker on the front cover. The sticker was glued to the plastic protection or on a white page inside the protection.

It seems you have downgraded the protection (no more protection actually) and you have decided that the front cover doesn't deserve any other attention than a big sticker with my address on it. Bonus, the sticker is really hard to take off without damaging the front cover gggrrrr

Maybe I'll file a complaint... on the other side, should I stick to the online version (pun intended).

I just got a renewal notice a week ago, interesting...

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

Ben — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:41:07 GMT

Who edits the MSDN .NET Class library documentation?

I swear I see "who's on first?" and "muddled thinking" all over the place.

Not saying I could do better ;)

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

Andy — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:48:08 GMT

For blogging articles, would you recommend inline links or references at the end of the article more like a paper article?

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

SamG — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:57:23 GMT

I have a quick question about the new layout of the MSDN magazine. It seems to be a bit broken and more difficult to read and follow than the good, old format. Case in point, home page of the April 2008 magazine has a huge gap between "Columns" section title and the actual list of columns. It would be great to have a button "Apply previous CSS" on each page. To read your articles, I have to go to printer-friendly.

I had the same issue with the sticker on the title page as someone who posted here before me. Generally, the most vicious stickers are applied to magazines and books across industry. Isn't anyone thinking that those will damage the merchandise?

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

Sam — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:40:15 GMT

Now that we are talking about pet peeves, I have a question about printer-friendly article format. The new MSDNMAG layout does not expand figures in printer-friendly format which makes printing articles a bit inconvenient.

Is there a way to print articles with all figures expanded? Or, better, is there a way to go back to the old layout

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

MSDNMagazine — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:48:06 GMT

Hi SamG

I'll pass your concerns to the appropriate people. We really do appreciate your feedback!

Nancy

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

MSDNMagazine — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:50:52 GMT

Hi Andy

I can only offer my personal preference, and that's inline links, which provide more context.

nancy

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

MSDNMagazine — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:28:34 GMT

Sam,

"Is there a way to print articles with all figures expanded? Or, better, is there a way to go back to the old layout"

We'll look into this. Thanks

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

Peter — Sat, 03 May 2008 00:40:27 GMT

Another printing problem is that the MSDN Magazine articles ( and others? ) no longer include the date the article was written or published.

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

Ilya — Wed, 07 May 2008 05:29:36 GMT

The printing of MSDN articles is a large concern for me - it also seems to be browser dependant. In Firefox, if you manaually expand the figures and then print, they appear on the printout. In IE, if you expand all the figures and print, they are still collapsed.

I've reached the point where I'm cutting and pasting the entire article into Word and print from there.

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

MSDNMagazine — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:48:20 GMT

Ilya, I will pass this feedback on to our web production team. Thanks.

re: An editor's top six pet peeves

Xavier — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:55:01 GMT

Thanks Ilya for the trick, I was looking for a solution to print the figures. Even if Firefox prints the figures, it has other problems. Copy/paste to Word is a better and satisfying workaround. I hope MSDNMag people will correct this point soon.