Please Pluck Out My Eyes

Regular readers of the blog may know my one-man campaign to eradicate "coloring book" abstract graphics. Of course color helps out - when applied sparingly and to 'draw the eye' - but why the MSPaint-fill backgrounds? Especially those with similar structure colors, which obfuscate more than help?

I ask, of course, because these two abstracts just showed up back-to-back in my RSS feed:

Abe Group, JACS ASAP

Jia Group, JACS ASAP

Readers: Do these colors help you to understand something specific about the chemistry? Or are they just too much?

Abstract Coloring Book: Take Two

The "colored abstract bug" spreads quickly. Since I began cataloguing appearances, they've cropped up in several other journals, including at least 3 examples in just the last 48 hours.


First, here's some ACIEE oroidin fun, courtesy of the Romo and Molinski groups (sea sponge in the background?):

Next, a sweet little palladacycle OM, thanks to the Gonzalez-Herrero and Vicente groups, in Spain (bright yellow, for Pd?):

Finally, submitted for your consideration, this chalcogen cluster assembly graphic from the Holm lab at Harvard, which recently graced JACS ('M' is tungsten, in case you missed it...):

Again, I'd like to point out that I'm not opposed to deft use of color, to draw the eye, differentiate, or point out an otherwise missed detail. But when the abstracts look more like abstract art? Too much.


Side Note: I couldn't resist showing one more, even though it's not from this past week. A 2011 KCN classic, nonetheless - behold, Epicoccin G (now in color!)

Coloring Chemistry - Useful, or Distracting?

Credit: JACS, Stepien group

While flipping through the JACS ASAP abstracts, I noticed this scheme from a group in Poland. My first thought, though, was not "Oh, cool, fused* porphyrins."

Nope. Instead, I thought "The coloring bug has spread!"

Credit: ACIEE, Nicolaou group

See, for a few years now, certain organic chemists have begun to "ink" their reaction schemes. At first, the rationalization was beauty, the notion that artistic flair livened up the work. Then, the noveau artistes spoke of functionality, indicating similarly sized groups, say, or drawing the reader's eye to certain molecular features (Note: go here or here for Derek's ITP take, or here for TotSyn's)

Lately, though, it's like a child has spilled his watercolor paints all over the abstract. Maybe these guys should team up on that new ACS coloring book.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of scientific visualizations that help illustrate a concept, like the winners of the 2011 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge. And seminar slides with some red or blue structures never hurt anyone. But colored reaction schemes seem, to me, to be more about catching the eye (Wow, look over there!) than communicating good science.

Credit: JACS, Glorius group

Readers, what do you think? Am I just missing the point here? Or do you find the coloring-book approach equally vexing? 

I look forward to a spirited debate in the comments!

*(Bonus chemistry word of the day, for those playing at home: tetrabenzochrysenoporphyrin!)