Most people running over each other to buy the next IPHONE or the next IPAD don’t care about content they care about having the newest flashy-est thing on the market. That being said in this example TYPOGRAPHY is essential. This demographic doesn’t care about the content they care about entertainment.

This is the reason why they choose what looks better rather than what functions better.

500MB for Goddamn fonts might seem stupid? But its those fonts that grab their attention and make the page look nice. It’s a fucking ipad for fuck sake you realize the main people buying these things are rich people with money to blow. They don’t care about content they’ll pay any mount of money to be entertained.

Why in the hell would any normal person want yet another tool to let them do the same thing their phone does or laptop or desktop? Why because they made you think you needed it 

Using a purchased add on to inDesign, and managing workflow in inCopy allows a magazine to use software that all the page designers already know how to use to repackage the same content, with bonuses like video and audio, photo galleries, e-commerce without major retraining or large numbers of new hires.

A magazine usually involves passing the same files through multiple depts where each puts in their text, or credits, or design with images, links etc. Most of these people are writers, graphic designers, photo editors, copy editors and imaging specialists. This last group is probably the most like to have programming skills. You have get everyone to create this content and contribute their part every week. If you use something that makes inDesign turn out a product that can be read on a tablet, then you can just make the same people you have do more work that resembles what they are used to doing somewhat, with just a couple more freelancers here and there.

Perhaps they should have chosen a program that would make inDesign files into HTML5, but programming HTML5 from scratch would be an insane level of effort for people who already are turning out a print edition simultaneously. I'm stressing that, a profitable print magazine is being turned out simultaneously, on the same schedule, by the same people. You need to make this process the most like the current process possible to make it viable for a national magazine to make iPad apps. The point is always the content, making it interesting, delivering it on schedule using the people who know how to make this content.

My experience with the mag apps, is they are pleasantly different from the web. The web has a lot of flinging things around the visual field you are looking at. The web can cause you to be distracted from what you are currently reading and go google or follow a link and be at any other website in the world. It's on a computer which usally has icons and other things in your visual field. An iPad app mag takes up the whole visual field, it doesn't have a lot of things in it that take you completely out of the app. You have to turn the ad pages like you would in a mag. It's true the interaction seems a little bit gimmicky for the moment, but there is something about the tactile, and the visuals that are a really nice way to get images and text to your eyes.

No one who wants the content is going to be griping about the language used, although file sizes they may not be happy about.

Using a purchased add on to inDesign, and managing workflow in inCopy allows a magazine to use software that all the page designers already know how to use to repackage the same content, with bonuses like video and audio, photo galleries, e-commerce without major retraining or large numbers of new hires.

A magazine usually involves passing the same files through multiple depts where each puts in their text, or credits, or design with images, links etc. Most of these people are writers, graphic designers, photo editors, copy editors and imaging specialists. This last group is probably the most like to have programming skills. You have get everyone to create this content and contribute their part every week. If you use something that makes inDesign turn out a product that can be read on a tablet, then you can just make the same people you have do more work that resembles what they are used to doing somewhat, with just a couple more freelancers here and there.

Perhaps they should have chosen a program that would make inDesign files into HTML5, but programming HTML5 from scratch would be an insane level of effort for people who already are turning out a print edition simultaneously. I’m stressing that, a profitable print magazine is being turned out simultaneously, on the same schedule, by the same people. You need to make this process the most like the current process possible to make it viable for a national magazine to make iPad apps. The point is always the content, making it interesting, delivering it on schedule using the people who know how to make this content.

My experience with the mag apps, is they are pleasantly different from the web. The web has a lot of flinging things around the visual field you are looking at. The web can cause you to be distracted from what you are currently reading and go google or follow a link and be at any other website in the world. It’s on a computer which usally has icons and other things in your visual field. An iPad app mag takes up the whole visual field, it doesn’t have a lot of things in it that take you completely out of the app. You have to turn the ad pages like you would in a mag. It’s true the interaction seems a little bit gimmicky for the moment, but there is something about the tactile, and the visuals that are a really nice way to get images and text to your eyes.

No one who wants the content is going to be griping about the language used, although file sizes they may not be happy about.