1. the frustrating part is that it supports media properties like Australian Financial Review in their quest for excuses for locked down, archaic websites. And may cause some companies to do a U-turn from openness and transparency to ‘page turn, eyeball interactivity’. Because we all know they will ignore the AdAge blogs and point to the ‘interactive magazine’ as the ‘future’ of media online.

  1. Another sad case of content being authored for a single medium, unable to be re-purposed and thus pretty useless in other media.

    Even a respectable journal like Scientific American makes the same mistake. SciAm digital provides PDFs exactly the same as the print format. As so many articles are written across 2-page spreads, only with a HUGE monitor that allows the PDF to be rendered that way (and still be readable) does the content look right – or indeed make sense. (Try finding the sidebars that are on a different page.)

    One of the reasons that I gave up and went back to the print version. That and not needing to lug around a clumsy great machine everywhere.

  2. I completely get your point Laurel. I know the people this would interest, having observed them at close quarters recently. They like eBook brochures over substance-rich websites and are part of a hopefully diminishing breed in charge at “new-media” agencies.

    These are people who love that page-flipping animation, because it feels just like being there.

    It is all about selling ad space, preserving the traditional advertising space, and not about finding ways to engage with people in a way they want to.

    I weep for my bretheren!

    joe ortenzi’s last blog post..The train-chasing shuffle

Comments are closed.