Mashable’s Lauren Indvik writes about magazine apps looking bad on the new iPad. She mostly refers to publishers who wanted to retain print-like magazine design and therefore cunningly churned out rendered PNG or JPEG files for each page, rather than using native text. Now the new iPad has a resolution far greater than that of its predecessor, these magazines all look like blurry crap.

Indvik lists a bunch of examples, stating they all looked terrible, and noted that Vogue was the sole exception, because the company

was able to optimize for the iPad’s “retina display” ahead of time

She then worries about file-sizes, stating that magazine apps are already big enough, and so we could see titles ballooning to unworkable levels. The problem is in the methodology used to create the apps:

Magazine publishers who use Adobe’s software all begin with InDesign to develop layouts, [Zeke Koch, senior director of product management of Adobe’s digital publishing arm] explained. Those layouts can then be exported in three different kinds of formats: as images (.png or .jpg), PDF or HTML. Different kinds of files — images, for instance, or video and audio files — are embedded within those larger file types.

Since magazines began publishing on tablets, “virtually all” publishers have chosen to export their digital editions as PNG (.png) files, Koch said. “The primary reason they did that is because the fidelity is perfect. What you see on the desktop when you’re designing is exactly what you see on the iPad when you’re finished. Images are the fastest thing to load, and if you’re trying to create a quick, effortless browsing experience, images are the way to do that,” he explained.

One of the magazines I write for, Tap!, took a wildly different approach. Instead of designing its app by thinking like magazine designers, the team started with a blank canvas and designed an app (YouTube). It developed a publishing platform that works on the iPad (TechRadar), to create a digital magazine for the iPad. The net result is that Tap! looks great on the new iPad, largely because it’s using native text rather than rendering to flat images. It looks so good that a prominent UX designer I recently chatted with initially refused to believe me when I said the app had not yet been optimised for the new iPad.

The Tap! team isn’t blind to Apple’s new device. It is working to optimise those relatively few components that require optimising for the next issue, but because of the nature of the app itself, it will grow rather more subtly than its contemporaries. To my mind, this is a way forward: create something new and don’t root yourself in publishing’s past. This is why the following claim from Indvik’s article almost makes my brain explode:

What Vogue did — and what all other titles will have to do in the coming weeks — is begin exporting their digital editions as PDFs, said Koch.

Great. Bin any innovation in magazine apps in terms of navigation and new interfaces and return to literal virtual versions of magazines. And it doesn’t end there:

But what about file size? I pointed out to Koch that Vogue was nearly as large as Wired‘s first issue for the original iPad. Unfortunately, he said, magazine files will be larger for iPad 3 readers because the image and video files need to be delivered at a higher resolution.

There are ways around this. Tap! doesn’t hold videos locally, but pulls them down on demand. From a user experience standpoint, this does mean if you’re on a crappy connection you can’t watch the videos, but it also means that a few issues of the magazine don’t fill up your iPad. It’s about balance, which, to my mind, is what a lot of the future of publishing is about. Trying to cling on to the old ways of doing things will prove fatal to the industry.

Indvik does at least ask about an alternative in her piece, essentially treating mag apps as compiled websites:

But why not render in HTML? I asked Koch. Wouldn’t that make the files smaller, and give readers the added benefit of selectable text?

Koch claimed that publishing in HTML wouldn’t substantially reduce the file sizes. “In both cases, you have a bunch of words, and descriptions of where things should be, and multimedia. Those multimedia files are still the same size.”

I’d argue this is inaccurate. Native text is smaller than rendering text to flat images—even newbie web designers understand this. It’s also ignoring the accessibility drawbacks of rendering to flat images.

To be fair to Koch, he’s also talking about overall file sizes, because assets like video won’t drop in size, but I’ve already addressed this point. But he also makes an argument that is the crux of the matter, showcasing why so many publishers are working with systems that are not optimal for tablets:

He said the big disadvantage with HTML is that it’s “not very good at layout out things predictably and perfectly.” Rather, it’s optimal for helping people create content that will adapt to any size screen. [sic]

This pretty much sums things up: ‘predictably and perfectly’. Almost everything in digital magazine publishing reminds me of web design in the mid-1990s. Back then, I had to fight hard against people who would attempt to render entire web pages as images, because this would enable everything to be laid out precisely. Never mind the fact this screwed things up from an accessibility perspective, and also totally ignored the benefits of the new medium. But at least there was some excuse back then—browsers were basic and no-one had experience to draw on. The arguments were new. Today’s web standards, however, provide a ton of control from a typographical and layout standpoint, but things are just different to how they are in print. You define anchor points and containers within which your content can move and shift, reflowing depending on the needs of the user.

But the thing is, Tap! showcases that you needn’t just jump from PNG to PDF to HTML: there are alternatives to all of these things that give you enough precision while also providing accessible content that enables you to keep more than a couple of issues on your iPad before being forced to delete your entire music collection. Again: try something new. Build for the medium. Start with a blank canvas, not a readymade that essentially forces you into a particular way of working that is not optimal.

The article’s conclusion is particularly maddening in this respect:

So there you have it. Magazine readers need not despair about the appearances of their magazines for too much longer, as publishers are working to optimize their editions. The fix is relatively simple: publishers will have to increase the resolution of their image and video files, and export their digital editions as PDFs. iPad 3 owners will have to suffer longer download times, and won’t be able to store as many magazines on their devices as iPad 1 and 2 owners, but that’s the price one pays for a visually stunning reading experience, no?

No. That’s the price we pay for publishers not following Apple’s own advice and thinking different, instead choosing to cling to the wreckage of essentially deprecated ways of working.

Further reading: Tap!’s editor weighs in on the new iPad’s display and the supposed bloating of magazine apps.

There’s an interesting video online from Chris Pirillo, with his father battling Windows 8. The problem is that he can’t get back to the initial screen, because Microsoft scrapped the UI conventions he understands and has instead hidden the equivalents as corner-based hot-spots. On Daring Fireball, John Gruber comment:

Could be this has no predictive value regarding how regular people will think about Windows 8, but it’s an eye-opener regarding the risk Microsoft is taking by making essential UI navigation elements hidden until you hover the mouse in the right spots. People navigate with their eyes, not by scrubbing the screen with the mouse.

I don’t think Microsoft’s alone here, but the video highlights a possibly worrying trend in UI design. My father recently used an iPad for the first time, and he had no problem with some aspects of the interface, such as launching apps, zooming and so on. But he at one point came across some text that was cut off. “How do I get to the rest of it?”, he asked me. I responded that you just swipe it.

iOS is full of this kind of thing, and its conventions are increasingly coming to the Mac. Scroll bars are hidden, so you’ve no indication (beyond some apps ‘flashing’ the bars as you access new content) whether content is hidden or not. When text ends with a full sentence rather than cutting off half-way through some letters, it’s not obvious you need to scroll, even if you know the required gesture. And then there are the countless apps that now ‘hide’ controls, requiring you to learn new conventions, but for individual apps rather than the system as a whole. Coherence is being eroded as devices become the tools; it’s almost like a regression, with you having to learn new things every time you buy an app.

I’m not saying these things are necessarily bad. In most cases, modern computing is far more user-friendly than it used to be, and gestures are typically pretty memorable. Additionally, we’re in some cases moving towards more controls in context, which can be helpful. Also, one might argue that many ‘hidden’ aspects of UI are easily learned, and so people really only need to be shown once and they’ll subsequently be fine. But we are definitely seeing a massive shift in how software interfaces work, and I think it’s disingenuous to suggest this is a Microsoft issue or risk—it’s really far more widespread within the industry.

Update: Lukas Mathis explores the new iPhoto for iOS app, in iPhoto’s Mystery Meat Gestures, showcasing problems behind hidden UI.

Beverley Turner writes for the Telegraph, possibly from some time in the 1970s, with the article The younger generation doesn’t do boredom—it must have an iPad or iPhone to hand. We only get as far as the strap-line before we’re hit in the face with:

Will the boom in apps for children, which has been capitalised on by Disney, stifle their imagination?

I think if we ignore, say, all of the educational interactive apps and games, the answer is a clear yes. Kids clearly cannot be imaginative using a device with myriad apps that can enable them to be creative and have fun.

The technology behemoth Apple is rejoicing after the sale of its 25-billionth app. The Disney game, Where’s My Water?, was, it says, downloaded by a Chinese child who can now swipe one finger across a screen to release water onto a subterranean alligator.

This Chinese child is now, presumably, both unimaginative and receiving counselling, in the mind of Turner, rather than, say, occasionally happily playing an interactive cartoon instead of merely watching cartoons. BAD APPLE!

It is a particularly apt app as its protagonist, Swampy, is also the first original character developed by Disney for a “mobile platform”. Whereas children’s movies such as Cars started on the big screen and morphed into games, Swampy hatched in our palms and will eventually appear in cinemas.

A terrible thing. It’s depressing that Disney has fallen so low as to embrace new forms of technology, rather than making a huge movie and more cynically creating app-oriented marketing-led tie-ins as it has in the past. BAD DISNEY!

Addiction to new characters has suddenly become easier: they are lurking just inside our handbags. Apparently, this is cause for celebration (surely there’s an app to help us look happy). Speaking on the Today programme about the importance of targeting children, Disney’s senior vice-president, Bart Decrem said: “A whole generation of kids is growing up with… [iPads and iPhones] as their ‘first screen’.”

It’s going to be the downfall of civilisation. Kids were much better off when they were growing up with the TV as their first screen. A TV that they couldn’t interact with in anything more than the most basic of ways. A TV that wouldn’t so often encourage “planning, problem solving, and creative self-expression” (GamesBeat).

Fewer phrases could be more chilling

At least to anyone who inexplicably things iPads are evil.

– but mainly because he is right. Disney has always known that chocolate-and-snot-covered fingers lead the way to riches. Apps for children will prove extremely lucrative for the company, and may be welcomed by parents up and down the country as convenient new babysitters. I must confess to being recently bowled over by a Times Tables app that kept two energetic eight-year-olds entertained on a long train journey.

So, your kids were entertained and educated on a long train journey, in part through an app? Sounds terrible.

Furiously, I flail against a tide of technology.

“I am rubbish with technology.”

My son, Croyde, was oddly underwhelmed when I presented him with my old CD collection

I can’t imagine why physical media would underwhelm anyone who’s used to whatever music they want, whenever they want it.

I can’t do email on my mobile phone and – brace yourself – I still use an A-Z.

“I am rubbish with technology.”

But, of course, I’m terrified of leaving my children ill-equipped for the future, so they have limited access to our random assortment of gadgets. I’ve suffered countless five-hour car journeys in which iPod, iPad and even DVD player (how retro) screens are dribbled over. Every passing cow and sheep is given a disdainful reception until I eventually yell “Enough!”, confiscate the devices and insist my children gaze out of the window.

Gazing out of the window being a better use of their time than the Times Tables app you mentioned earlier. Right.

The problem is this: our children do not know how to be bored.

How terrible. It must be hell for a child when it’s always got something to do that it enjoys.

[Disney admits its aim] is to “create engagements within the span of a minute”. In other words, you can complete Where’s My Water? in 60 seconds.

No. You’ll complete a level of Where’s My Water? in 60 seconds. Anyone who can complete the entire game in 60 seconds is clearly a liar, or, perhaps, has pilfered Doctor Who’s TARDIS. Also, this is all about relevance for specific scenarios. Why is your article only a few hundred words long and not a book? Because it’s designed to be consumed, like most online newspapers, in bite-sized chunks. See also: mobile gaming.

We don’t need psychological research to tell us that nascent Michelangelos will struggle to commit to future Sistine Chapels if they expect reward to come in thrilling 60-second bites.

Whereas nascent Michelangelos will commit to future Sistine Chapels by being told to stare at livestock out of car windows? Perhaps art apps, which boost confidence through undos and, according to art teachers at Fraser Speirs‘ school, subsequently lead to more exploration in real-life tools could help children become nascent Michelangelos? Staring at cows is obviously the better route.

God knows how they’ll cope with the monotony of long-term relationships.

By staying engaged and trying new things, rather than being told that boredom is inevitable?

No matter how lovable Disney makes its app characters, looking silently at a handheld screen teaches our children nothing about language, empathy or relationships.

Hogwash. It all depends what’s on the screen. It depends on whether a parent is leaving their kids alone with devices, or playing along with them. It depends on balance—on things like iPads and other technology only being a part of a child’s life. But one thing I would say without doubt is that technology has the potential to enrich lives, from toddlers to centenarians.

Many of us live in a world filled with technology. It’s perhaps only natural and healthy as we age to be a little cautious, but immersion is better than blockage. Recognition of technology’s benefits beats being scared that a cartoon alligator is going to numb the minds of children the world over, when he’s merely offering a brief past-time that can provide enjoyment, planning and puzzle-solving to people of any age.

Marc Palmer on the iPad Retina display:

If you don’t agree with the statement “the retina display on the new iPad is a game changer” you need to consider this:

When you cannot see the individual pixels, on a screen of this size, it will no longer seem like you are looking at a screen. This has a massive effect on the way the user feels and perceives the product and the software that runs on it. If you don’t believe this, throw away your laser printer and get a 100 dpi dot matrix from the 1980s. While you don’t normally think about it your brain and perception is aware of the tiny black grid separating the pixels and the “unnatural” jagged edges on things.

The massive jump in screen technology since my early Apple computing days has been astonishing. I used my first Mac with what was then a hugely expensive 17-inch Trinitron monitor. It was impossible to entirely lose yourself in the display, because the thing flickered like crazy, with the refresh rate on the optimum resolution being 75 Hz. This dropped to an eye-kicking 67 Hz on one of the alternative resolutions.

The first big jump for me was when flat-screens became the norm. No headaches. No flickering. Just lovely, solid imagery. But then came the iPhone, which crammed about twice as many pixels into every inch than my Mac’s monitor did. It made the Mac display, when viewed a bit too close up, look a bit rubbish. The thing is, none of these things prepared me for my first encounter with an iPhone 4.

I held the thing in my hands and had an instant reaction to peel off the sticker, only it didn’t have a sticker. My brain could not comprehend how sharp this display was. As someone who’d sat there in front of several CRT disasters, this new iPhone was quietly laughing at my display history. It had also, in one fell swoop, made everything before it look like crap. I’d thought the iPhone 3GS display was pretty good, but now it looked awful. My iPad’s display, too, felt sub-optimal for reading tasks, due to having a clear case of the jaggies.

Palmer’s right. The new iPad screen is a game changer, because it’s about immersion. In having clear, print-like text, you’re not constantly reminded that you’re looking at a computer display. The device will, when apps are fully optimised, feel even more like it turns into the app you’re running than ever before. Apple’s rivals that cannot compete will claim otherwise, yelling that, sure, the new iPad has a Retina display, but they have a stylus, or an SD card slot, or can run a discontinued version of Flash. Most people don’t care about those things—the display is what you watch and interact with, and it’s, bar perhaps the software ecosystem, the most important thing about this rapidly evolving field of computing. Anyone who doesn’t believe the new iPad is a game-changer in that regard is just kidding themselves.

Hat tip: Keith Martin

Michael French for Develop writes about his GDC experience in GDC and the death of the gods. He notes that the gaming gods of the industry—Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo—once offered keynotes that defined the future of the industry, but now the gods are dying, largely due to competition from newcomers. He makes one point that I find particularly interesting:

As journalists like me say, ‘the [blank] happened’. The Internet happened. Facebook happened. iPhone happened. The power shifted. And Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony—they all lost some relevance. They had to share power with platforms that were built, at a macro level at least, to not be so draconian. For better or worse, platforms like the App Store are free markets instead of walled gardens.

In case you didn’t catch that:

platforms like the App Store are free markets instead of walled gardens

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this. At an EA event last year, I spoke to a few developers who’d created games for a number of platforms. They glumly told horror stories of their experiences on the ‘god’ platforms, before brightly saying what a breath of fresh air the relatively open iOS ecosystem is for gaming. Yet we most often only hear about the times when someone at Apple comes down with a bad case of the stupids, rejecting a game or app for spurious reasons, and not the many thousands of games that have ended up on the App Store that simply wouldn’t exist for any other mobile platform.

I’m not suggesting iOS is the most open of platforms, because it clearly isn’t, and it would be great to see the likes of OS X’s Gatekeeper arrive on iOS, providing a little extra freedom regarding apps that can be installed. But open and not-open isn’t black and white—instead there’s a diverse range as you move from one extreme to the other, and this is especially true when it comes to mobile gaming.