2 ms·
I don't own a tablet, saw one in action for the first time a week ago and the owner and I basically came up with the same reasons why it's rather useless as the
by soulclap 16y ago
I don't own a tablet, saw one in action for the first time a week ago and the owner and I basically came up with the same reasons why it's rather useless as the ones mentioned in the article. It's definitely nice to have for reading in bed or keeping up 'on the road' but overall it seems to be pretty reduced to 'consuming' instead of 'producing'.
One thing I like about tablets is that they made publishers reconsider how they can bring a better and more rich 'experience' to their readers (subscribers). But I wonder how long it will take until they notice that they should rework their web pages as well. I am so tired of (nearly) all web 'articles' ('features') just consisting of a headline and endless blocks of text, maybe an embedded video and some links, you could do so much more.
- Lost_BiomedE 16y ago'you could do so much more' Could you elaborate on this? It is not immediately obvious to me.
- soulclap 16y agoSure. When you look at a 'proper magazine' there is a lot more work regarding to the layouts, additional info graphics and such. And I guess the iPad app versions of current magazines have got all these plus animated graphics, timelines, better integration of video and all that. I am not saying a daily news site really needs this but even in articles that are not time-critical you usually only see large chunks of text or paginated slideshows. Considering that you can basically do 'everything' on the web, it would be nice to see sites with a focus on content really take advantage of this. I could also imagine today's sites 'borrowing' some stylistic devices from TV documentaries and the like. Sure, all of this needs some more work. But it seems to be possible on tablets, so why not on the web? I don't get that. I hope it's a bit more clear now.