Not For Paper

Your Life Story

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:28:00 -0700

That is what Mark Zuckerberg would like the new Facebook profile to be for half a billion active users.

For most people, this is probably a stretch. But after giving the new profile a test run myself, I was surprised to find it quite enlightening. It took no more than a few seconds of scrolling to find myself curiously diving into my [Facebook] life, curious to find out how people will now perceive me based on a single page. For the first time, there is a service that successfully allows anybody to create a living document of their life if they so choose—without committing to being a blogger or overly obsessive documentarian.

Other new features of this new profile are a little frightening. People are free to add events, posts, pictures, etc. to the past. And of course posts can still be deleted. Anyone an effectively create complete picture of their life, but one that isn't even accurate if even true. Much of this already happened on Facebook and other social networks, but now the reward for doing so (or punishment) will be that much greater.

Once this goes live on September 30th, it will be fascinating to watch how behavior on the social network will change. I can certainly say that I'll be driven to use the service more, essentially crafting a picture of my life visible to people online. Whether or not this is positive, or a step further into losing our real lives to digital ones, remains to be seen.

Also, if anyone thought Facebook would stand still while Google started innovating, I think this puts aside those assumptions.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

I Just Want to Read The News

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:03:00 -0700

"We have launched a new, faster, more complete app for the iPad and iPhone which is available via your browser rather than from an app store."

...says Financial Times, who just joined a small group of publishers that refuse to unabashedly join the Apple brigade. Their iOS app, for iPad in particular, is one of the more refined news applications on the App Store. And yet as of now (unless they change their minds) they've decided to pull back support for the iOS app. Instead they've transitioned their iOS experience to a web app, that users can still save to their desktop, and functions ALMOST just like the native app. It's certainly one of the better web apps using HTML5, CSS3, and all that tech jazz.

We can assume that for Financial Times, there are some benefits to leaving the App Store:

• This allows them to avoid paying 30% of the subscription fees to Apple—something Apple enforces on users who subsribe from within an app.

• This is more flexible for getting the application on future tablets and phones across different platforms.

• Updates are not tied to Apples approval process.

For the user, there really isn't a benefit I can see. The benefits of going with a native app:

• Native apps are still more responsive.

• The application gets all the benefits of native functionality, such as multi-tasking.

• With Apple's upcoming Newsstand, content updates are pulled to front and center.

• Subscription management is all in one place (with your Apple account).

Apple obviously has incentives to keep things in-house as well:

• Control over the user experience (more control at least). e.g. Newsstand for iPad.

• 30% of the profits (for those that subscribe in-app).

• Note: They've given a free pass to many video subscription services (no Newsstand equivalent yet for video yet).

The question is, are the benefits to FT going to out-weight the losses. Being on the app-store means getting a spot of the shelf of the most popular digital storefront around. And with that comes features that help to draw in more users and make subscriptions more appealing. Features like centralized account management, and content updates in the Newsstand. Only time will answer that question.

Having tried the web app after being a steady user of the iPad native app, the 'more complete app' value isn't coming through. Native apps have benefits over the web. But the web also has many benefits over native apps. And this move is merely trying to replicate the native app experience on the web—which can only be partially successful. Regardless of the profit share issue, users will go where the best experience is—and even pay for it given the right value. And the web can be a great thing. But publishing to the web should also mean taking full advantage of everything the web has to offer. Let a website be a website (can still have some app-like behavior). And let an app be an app. I might even pay for both if you do both right.

Commentary on NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/technology/08ftapp.html

Permalink | Leave a comment »

A Step in the Right Direction

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:16:00 -0700

Monday, Bloomberg Business launched their attempt at the digital magazine for iPad. So far, I'd like to say that it's one of the better attempts made thus far. Or at least it's very good step in the right direction.

It seems like nobody has really been able to get it right so far. At least for the moment, everyone has fallen victim to a few pitfalls.

• Downloads take forever—the layouts are merely massive image sets—nullifying one of the key assets of digital.

• Each magazine has it's own unique UI and user experience.

• They try to mimic the physical magazine, digitally. This leads to less than optimal digital page turning.

• EXPENSIVE—Few people can justify spending $5 on a single digital issue.

The new Business Week makes some good progress on at least a few of these areas.

One. It is one of the first iPad magazines to offer in-app subscriptions. This means that with the click of a button, I can now read an issue per week at a mere $3 per month. Pretty good compared to competitors. Some have criticized Apple for their new subscription policy. But for the user, this is pretty painless.

Two. Issues are based on simple templates—so articles don't get downloaded as stacks of images. This means issues download fairly speedily, and text is selectable.

Three. Articles all exist online as well—on the standard website. So articles can be shared just as if you were reading from the website.

Four. It's a great design. Simple design features like well done section summaries with links to each article in the section, veer from the print layout, but are expected in digital. Each article ends with links to similar articles. Again, a simple tried a true website feature, that's missing from other digital magazines.

Overall, this feels much closer to how an app ought to sell the idea of paying for editorial content. Take the same content I can get digitally for free, but package it in a more desirable package for a tablet. Simple idea on the surface, but easier said than done. Getting people to pay for quality digital editorial content isn't easy.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Bill Has Arrived

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:40:00 -0700

Yesterday, The New York Times officially unveiled it's digital subscription plans. We all knew this day was coming in one form or another. But I do tend to wonder if this plan will work out for the better. Seems like there are two big themes to consider: Financial survival, and media influence.

Even if NYTimes finds financial gain with this move (which is still very much in question), I wonder how their influence will change. It seems fairly straight forward to me that the more eyeballs hitting your content, the more influence you have. And generally speaking, pay wall reduce eye balls. Clearly, the move to allow free access from links into NYTimes.com is a move to help alleviate this issue. They are assuming that this combined with 20 free reads per month, will keep the majority of readers seeing their content. Which leads us to the other side; the group that should start paying for content, helping the global paper to survive.

The payment plan is confusing. One fee for unlimited NYTimes.com. An additional if you also want tablet app access. And yet another additional if you also want smartphone app access. There are at least two problems with this plan:

One, it's confusing. Why shouldn't I be able to pay one simple additional fee for any app access outside of the website? This plan could quickly spiral into a system that has too many variations and shades of grey, that will turn off customers.

Two, the top tier is far to expensive. It's approximately $150 more per year than getting paper home delivery—which includes all the digital options. This is likely a deliberate move to keep the paper business as a very attractive option. But many of us really don't want a pile of newsprint on our door everyday, and don't see the point to paying more money for this 'luxury.'

Whether or not this new pay wall system works out for the better will be a show to watch. I believe we should and will pay for good content. But I'm not sure this proposal as is will be the plan that works.

The details: http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp0145.html

Drinking Water Crisis Infographic

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:18:00 -0700

What a beautiful use of digital to bring more context to issues that plague the planet everyday.

Kräutli's infographic

Read a thorough write up at Co.Design

Permalink | Leave a comment »

$500 Toy on my Desk

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:01:00 -0800

The iPad 2 has launched this weekend, and therefore I among many others are feeling the all too familiar sense of gadget envy. It's an addiction. And rather than fork over yet another $500 (minimum) to upgrade my current iPad, I'd rather think this one through more thoroughly. That starts with what I really need an iPad for.

My primary uses of the iPad 1 include:

• Reading up on the latest news

• The occasional magazine

• Trying to read a book (not sure about long form reading on a screen)

• Watching a movie or TV show on Hulu, etc.

It's been a great thing to have while traveling. Small, easy to throw in a bag, and most importantly, the battery life is amazing. So I rarely have to worry about running out of batter while on a flight or sitting at a coffee shop.

But the iPad still seems to be a device without a focus. What is it best for? My phone is great for staying in communication with people (and fits in my pocket)—oh an it also does a whole other mess of stuff. My laptop (which recently became nearly as portable as the iPad—being a new MacBook Air) is great for getting stuff done—oh and it does a whole other mess of stuff. What is my iPad best for? Not sure its best for anything.

But it is great to sit comfortably on the couch or bed whilst reading something online. Is that worth $500-$800? I could also buy a magazine. Perhaps when editorial content makes its way to the iPad in a slimmer form (not 400mb mag downloads), and the screen gets more resolution, I'll re-consider.

But I do love that new smart cover. Unbelievable.

Time to buy an iPad 2.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

It's Time to Design Content Again

Thu, 20 May 2010 12:00:00 -0700

The web has been and will continue to be a very different beast than traditional print. In my experience, even just 5 years ago a large number of designers despised the idea of going into web design—unfortunately. More than a handful saw it to be a lower form of design. Pitiful font support. Numerous layout limitations. Flash filled some holes but was mostly used for fireworks and frills rather than refined design. The web required an understanding of arcane languages meant for machines rather than humans. And worst of all, rather than enjoying the subtle textures of paper and the sweet smell of fresh ink, websites could only be viewed behind the cold glare of a monitor. Thumbing through pages in the park didn’t exist in this new digital world. No, web surfers had to push a puck around on a table and tap out directions with clunky keyboard.

But one factor above all others has always left a mark on web design. The web began and continues to be a tool for quickly dispersing information. Though unlike older mediums, it is also a two way conversation. It has turned everyone with a computer into a content creator—and this is a beautiful thing. But this also means web designers focus on designing the template for information, and all too often pay too little attention to the content itself.

This is also happens to be one of the more fascinating features of digital design. We need to digest so many more components than layout, typography, and aesthetics and brand. We think through full systems that have intelligence, flexibility, while guiding the user to content that we don’t know the specifics of until our job is done. To make matters more daunting, people consume our digital content in a variety of interactive manners across an ever increasing number of devices. I’ve often thought a digital designer is not that unlike an architect who designs a building, but realizes he or she cannot know exactly how people will use the space. We can only make well informed predictions.

All that being said, our industry is changing quickly. And I believe it’s time for more designers to push their digital creations to next level. Specifically, it is time that more of us create organic templates, with room for unique art direction that lives within rules of the original template. Designers and content creators love print because it provides a canvas to add an extra level of editorial touch that digital has rarely achieved. With print, love and care can be applied to every detail.

Every single issue of Wired Magazine has attention paid to the details. Each article has a specific story to tell, with art direction to match. This extra level of detail paid to the design of words on a page has real value and gets overlooked most of the time on the web. The layout, design, and illustration not only help tell a story, but come along with an implied sense of relevance. When someone takes the time to design the article, one will easily assume that it somehow matters more than some text thrown on a white sheet of paper.

This is missing from almost all content driven websites today. There are rarely if ever, any ways to add any specific art direction to content. All content gets funneled into the same template regardless of the story being told. There are a variety of reasons for this. Not least of which, achieving this effect is sometimes a larger technology hurtle. And until recently, content publishers have been unsure how much time and effort to invest in digital mediums. Most sites are also designed for short attention spans, more about consuming content quickly than enjoying it with any leisure. As luck would have it, we are now being encroached upon by a new class of device: the tablet. The iPad is now leading the charge for a new kind of digital delivery medium, that encourages users to slow down and digest content at a sustainable pace. Publishers now realize that digital is only threatening to overshadow print, and it is ever more important to take a second look at how content is presented digitally. We are also entering an exciting time of font support development on the web. Soon, high end typography will finally be a full reality on the web, without specialty plugins or image replacements.

There are but a handful of real world examples of designers and content creators taking advantage of editorial design aesthetic on a digital canvas. The current examples fall into two camps: blogs and magazines. A few blogs have undertaken the challenge of longer form articles, where each article gets custom art direction.

Permalink | Leave a comment »