SDS Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 For example: http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/?i=3938 please tell me, from a reader's perspective, what do you think about such software vs. more conventional formats liek PDF or converting a magazine to html.
The Dean Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 I have to say, the first few times I experienced it, I absolutely LOVED it. As I encountered it more, I have some mixed feelings. It certainly has the wow factor going for it. It also works well with shorter media (flyers) than it does with large catalogs, and such. Paging through a few hundred pages can get old, particularly if (for whatever reason) the pages load slowly. This one has a contents feature that could be better (and needs to lose the sound). But, on the plus side, this one has a thumbnail feature that really helps in negotiating the magazine. I haven't tried the search feature (as they usually suck), but if it's good, it will also help. Finally, the PDF option, allows those that don't like it, to download a more traditional format for their use. Now, I have never tested this technology on users, so that's just my impression. I'm guessing this particular implementation of the technology would test well. There are other, far less successful, implementations of the technology that might frustrate users.
HopsGuy Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 When reading your OP, I thought "I've seen this and I don't like it." I think Aaron Karo's site used to look like that. But when I clicked on the link and read it like a magazine, I have to admit, I liked it. I agree with the Dean that I might not like it as much when the product has more pages. The tipping point is probably around 80 pages. Online reading seems to suffer from the whole "Too Long, Didn't Read" problem.
plenzmd1 Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 For example: http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/?i=3938 please tell me, from a reader's perspective, what do you think about such software vs. more conventional formats liek PDF or converting a magazine to html. I thought it was cool. Have a feeling like Deano as I used it more my find some quirks, but also may find other features I like. Overall, I say over PDF
IDBillzFan Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 I thought it was a cool at first...until I got to the back cover of the magazine, at which point I needed to find a photo of the Peter Pan pixie fairy to help me feel manly again.
Fezmid Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 It's cute the first time. After that, it's just plain annoying.
Chilly Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 It's cute the first time. After that, it's just plain annoying. ^^ - Wut he said
buckeyemike Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 I love it. It shows how far computers and online software have come in just the past few years. I like PDF as well. Since I do bankruptcy work, I have to file everything online. It's a pain in the butt at first, but after a few cases, you wonder how you ever survived without it. It saves so much time.
The Dean Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 It's cute the first time. After that, it's just plain annoying. ^^ - Wut he said Did either of you guys try using the Thumbnail pages? That feature rocks, IMO. Makes it very easy to find what you're looking for.
JoeFerguson Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 That slows down my browser and makes stupid noises. Those two reasons alone will make me LESS likely to read the article. Just give me plain text. Why do you think we like TSW so much? You minimize the clutter.
Chilly Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 Did either of you guys try using the Thumbnail pages? That feature rocks, IMO. Makes it very easy to find what you're looking for. Ctrl+F in your web browser is even better.
Fezmid Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 Ctrl+F in your web browser is even better. The / key is even better than Ctrl-F.
Bmwolf21 Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 The / key is even better than Ctrl-F. For a quick search of one term, / is not too bad. But I like the versatility Firefox's Crtl+ F search gives - the highlighting, next, previous and Match Case options make things much easier in my searches.
Fezmid Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 For a quick search of one term, / is not too bad. But I like the versatility Firefox's Crtl+ F search gives - the highlighting, next, previous and Match Case options make things much easier in my searches. Ctrl-F does the same thing as / - only with two less keystrokes
Bmwolf21 Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 Ctrl-F does the same thing as / - only with two less keystrokes Unless there is an option that I can change, that isn't the case in my Firefox browser. If I hit / all I get is a single box that says "quick find." No other options, and when I search for a term that appears in multiple spots, there is no highlighting of every instance, no next or previous buttons, nothing. And wouldn't it be one less keystroke?
The Dean Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Ctrl+F in your web browser is even better. You can't use Ctl+F (or any of the other options discussed) to quickly look at images of the page, in order to quickly navigate there. For some magazines, and many catalogs and flyers, the pictures are far more valuable than the words. The thumbnail view is a great way to quickly browse the mag's contents and images.
Recommended Posts