The line lengths are too long when they go the full width of the document.

Also, the documents are functional but don't have much style.
Is that the way the scientific community likes things?
Surely they have developed an appreciation for the finer things in life, now that they earn so much more than they used to.

They use Trebuchet MS as their first choice for scientific text.
I mean that's ok since Curlz MT is not available on every computer ;-)

The line lengths are too long when they go the full width of the document.

Way too long, and resizing the window to get a more comfortable length doesn't work.

At the bottom of a long section they need a "Back to top" link, so you don't have to scroll back up again to get back to the section tabs...

[edit: Nick, for an academic article, this is actually pretty stylish. I'd like to compare it against the print version though... :D]
______________________________________________
Ever since I chose to block pop-ups, my toaster's stopped working.

Would have been nice to see an article with lots of equations in it, so see how (and how well) maths is handled. Gifs? Flash? MathML?
________________________________________________
Ever since I chose to block pop-ups, my toaster's stopped working.

In the Discussion section of Prototype #1, what should be double quotes “ ” show up as pairs of single quotes in IE, and as the missing-character diamond thing in FF. For me, at least.

Re: Line length. Is there anyone out there with enough technical savvy to suggest a solution?

@ dtw: What browser/OS are you using?

(for the record, I do not work for this company)

Line-length: how about applying the CSS "max-width" property to the section (such as the div#intro_container) containing the text block?

OS: Win XP, browser: FF and IE, as mentioned.

They need to hire a web designer instead of hacking something together and asking for criticism.

...just spotted that we can compare with the print version, as the PDF link is at the top. Helvetica, Helvetica, and more Helvetica... ;-D

By comparison, the web version does a decent job of tucking away that great mass of affiliations that makes an awkward wodge on the print page...

i'd say the choice of font-face and overall layout
fail to adequately convey the fact that elsevier
is desperate to find some way -- any way! --
to maintain the monopoly income-stream they
have built on the backs of academics too stupid
to realize that they were writing articles for free
and peer-reviewing them for free while elsevier
made a shitload of money by then selling the
journals composed of such articles to libraries,
who paid through the nose for the privilege...

-bowerbird

one person’s stupid is another one’s smart. natural balance.

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO