‘Digital magazines’ like Monkey and the recently launched Jellyfish – I just don’t get it. Using your mouse to ‘turn the pages’ in a digital facsimile of an offline format may be a neat way of sampling an offline magazine online (in fact we’ve used the same technology for exactly this) but as a consumer proposition..? You might have the best content in the world but surely this is not the most usable, user-friendly, or intuitive way of accessing it. Online protocols and configurations have developed over time to specifically drive the best level of usability for content and functionality (if you want to go to a new page you don’t have to ‘turn it’ , you just click) so why try and override them with an offline based format? Surely you need to think more about the user experience rather than the way you are used to delivering content? Am I alone in thinking this…?
Am I missing something?
12 responses to “Am I missing something?”
-
In theory I would agree with you, but I get AdAge emailed to me via Zinio (I think the technology is called that) so it looks like the actual mag and I turn the pages in the way that you describe. I also get access to the website. And if I am being honest I actually prefer the one that looks like the magazine, I think that I can skim better and get a quicker overview of the info in that week’s edition. The site is great for comment and digging a bit deeper, but call me old fashioned there is something that is visually pleasing and easy on the eye in the way that magazine lay out works!
-
In theory I would agree with you, but I get AdAge emailed to me via Zinio (I think the technology is called that) so it looks like the actual mag and I turn the pages in the way that you describe. I also get access to the website. And if I am being honest I actually prefer the one that looks like the magazine, I think that I can skim better and get a quicker overview of the info in that week’s edition. The site is great for comment and digging a bit deeper, but call me old fashioned there is something that is visually pleasing and easy on the eye in the way that magazine lay out works!
-
Have to admit I find it all a very strange experience (and not that user friendly). Perhaps it is just me…
-
Have to admit I find it all a very strange experience (and not that user friendly). Perhaps it is just me…
-
I can’t decide if it’s a gimmick or borrowed interest. Since I can’t decide I’ll simply say it’s crap.
-
I can’t decide if it’s a gimmick or borrowed interest. Since I can’t decide I’ll simply say it’s crap.
-
I wonder if this is the magazine equivalent of the London freesheets – or at least, an equivalent in the eyes of the publishers who assume that their readers are too thick to notice that websites do it better.
Isn’t Monkey published by the people behind one of the big men’s monthlies? (FHM or Esquire, I think).
If so, it’s a miscalculation, because the content embedded in the online mag is identical to the magazines’ newsletters, or can be found on YouTube. In which case, they are probably targeting a readership which is au fait with the web already (18-30 males are most likely to receive and send virals, according to Kontraband) and will soon tire of this facsimile of the real thing. -
I wonder if this is the magazine equivalent of the London freesheets – or at least, an equivalent in the eyes of the publishers who assume that their readers are too thick to notice that websites do it better.
Isn’t Monkey published by the people behind one of the big men’s monthlies? (FHM or Esquire, I think).
If so, it’s a miscalculation, because the content embedded in the online mag is identical to the magazines’ newsletters, or can be found on YouTube. In which case, they are probably targeting a readership which is au fait with the web already (18-30 males are most likely to receive and send virals, according to Kontraband) and will soon tire of this facsimile of the real thing. -
I quite like these on line magazines. You can just click to turn the page…
There are two arrows at the top left to do this.
You can also skip to a page using a hyperlink in the contents frame (on left hand side of the page).
All quite useable, but I guess its what you like and whether you are used to it. -
I quite like these on line magazines. You can just click to turn the page…
There are two arrows at the top left to do this.
You can also skip to a page using a hyperlink in the contents frame (on left hand side of the page).
All quite useable, but I guess its what you like and whether you are used to it. -
It depends how you use it. I think the idea of keeping the magazine format breaks it up. It’s not just another site – it’s a separate experience.
Some people want to turn the page and be guided in what content they see rather than have to select. If you’re blindly clicking on the ‘next article’ button, you may as well have a nice bit of animation on it.
I don’t know if the stats will bear me out in terms of user journeys, but I think many people read sites rather than read stories. A magazine type design will work for them. -
It depends how you use it. I think the idea of keeping the magazine format breaks it up. It’s not just another site – it’s a separate experience.
Some people want to turn the page and be guided in what content they see rather than have to select. If you’re blindly clicking on the ‘next article’ button, you may as well have a nice bit of animation on it.
I don’t know if the stats will bear me out in terms of user journeys, but I think many people read sites rather than read stories. A magazine type design will work for them.
Leave a Reply