What a shame you consciously ruined a fine product. This change appeared before the last group of new element names was confirmed, and your latest tables have these new names! So you had another printing but saw no need to return to the old format. Why change it? And I just realized something: I'm calling foul on your claim to look into this matter in the next printing. Admit you screwed up, dump what you have, and bring back the old format.
Who made the decision that suddenly there was so much information you could not use the same format anymore? BS! Just look at how much unused space is in each box now. I have versions of these tables dating back over 50 years, and decade after decade they maintained the same appearance. No way will I order the newly formatted tables with their smaller fonts and much unused space. I used to order them by the hundreds to give to my students, but now I will have to hold on to those I have left like grim death. I am so disappointed in the quality of your new generation of this classic periodic table. Your table was great once, and there's no reason why it can't rise to that height again. It's no great drama-mistakes were made, and can be rectified. Actually you can do it yourself-compare the 2018 version with one of the pre-update versions and let us know how they compare. I'll see if I can find a 2018 version of your table and let you know how it looks. The first time I saw the "new" version of the table I was staggered by how amateurish it looked, and astonished that it got past quality controls. The classic version of your table which was printed since at least the 60's was good quality, had better graphics (and this was the 60's-no fancy online graphics packages in those days!), always had the same amount of information, updated as appropriate, and was (and still is) easy to read. Frankly, whoever wrote that didn't know what they were talking about. The suggestion that, "Due to the amount of information that is presented in this table it is very difficult to make the font a large size and continue to include all of the information" has no foundation. I regret to say I agree with the other reviewers about the poor and embarrassing quality of the recent edition of this table.
0 kommentar(er)
