This is part II of my iPad series, which has actually become quite rough and lengthy. If you prefer it a bit shorter (just a bit), you should rather start with part I, which is about sharing the device.
Apps vs. Browser – that's my favorite topic around the iPad right now, because it relates to the other major surprise I encountered during my first weeks with the device: for me, the killer app is the web browser. Which doesn't seem to be a very special thing: "surfing the internet" is with 83% among the "most common uses" for new iPad owners, according to a survey by ChangeWave Research.
To be honest, in a way the iPad did not live up to my expectations. Which is, in retrospect, a good thing. I guess I bloated expectations with comparing to the fascination I experienced when first touching and using the iPhone (and at that time, this was my first real contact with a commercial, comprehensive multi touch product). Today, the iPhone is a commodity for me. And the iPad actually started on that level – no geeky excitement, no technology lust this time. Which again is why I think it's a good thing being underwhelmed at first glance.
On the iPhone, I'm totally into the single task and purpose nature of the apps model. When on the go, I totally embrace the focus it leads to and I can mostly forgive limitations it sometimes brings along. I think designing mobile interaction reduced for that very specific context of being away from a full-blown or stationary computer is the right thing to do. Many things just aren't important enough to take care of when standing in the middle of 35 other badly tempered people on a bumpy bus trip. Yeah, for sure I feel often tempted to accomplish inappropriate tasks in awkward moments. But I learned my lesson when – in a moment of inattention – I dumped my iPhone on the ground and it was fully broken. And let's not talk about those fully immersed people on the street, almost falling over themselves while staring at their mobile screen ...
Many of these iPhone apps feel similar in a way, cause the good ones mostly stick to some basic patterns defined by the environment of the iPhone OS. This is much more about some general principles, less about sticking to guidelines as close as possible. I have seen and used apps that have their very individual visual language and even some quite unusual behaviour – but as long as they're designed specifically for the iPhone and with iPhone users in mind (most often by hardcore iPhone users themselves), they work really well.
But apart from the fact apps can be sold thru iTunes and some native features that can only be done with apps, why shouldn't all the things I described be possible with websites or web apps? I'd say the fact that I have used many more great apps than mobile websites doesn't have to do with the format of delivery, it's rather about what's been done with it. And maybe developing apps for the iPhone more likely leads to better user experiences, because developers often rely to existing frameworks and use common building blocks (for convenience reasons, or simply because they have to). To put it cynically: these restrictions, on one hand from designing for a really small screen for people on the go and on the other hand thru predefined patterns rooted in a closed and regulated ecosystem are a good thing for undetermined decision makers, cause it actually forces them to eg. throw out a lot of things if they want to create an acceptable mobile user interface.
If the undecided are now using the iPad as a platform to bring back all their company level compromises to the user, because there's more space and a broader spectrum of interactivity, that's quite a bad thing. And this again doesn't have to do with apps or websites. It's a matter of general attitude and setup. Tablets, such as cellphones again have their characteristic criteria that have to be taken into account when developing content and functionality for that very target platform and audience (the same is true for desktop computers by the way, but some kind of actually needed reset seems to be way easier to accomodate if it's rooted in an external and seemingly inevitable impulse).
Why the biggest competitor to iPad news apps may be a familiar icon is a great posting on Nieman Lab. The author also experienced how web browsing would be his favorite task on the iPad and claims that for newspapers and magazines, their websites might become a major competitor for their rushed-by-a-hype content apps.
Many publishers are releasing theit titles to the iPad in highspeed, though I have not really seen a single news or magazine app that really convinced me. Many rather seem to fancy the paywall and blindly agree to the need of those real world metaphors that Apple wants them to use (I'm not against them in general, just very careful about it). In their case, using layouts, typography and "material" they know from the print world. And everybody does it in a different way – as a matter of taste, or to differentiate from competitors? I have even seen (or heard) page turning sounds in an iPad magazine that claims to be a "living magazine", which at first glance sounded kinda promising (apart from ringing the multimedia cd-rom bell). But I thought they at least are freeing themselves a bit from the world of dead trees. It seems many publishers feel urged to move their asses on the tablet in a quite dizzy rush.
On the other hand, more and more iPad owners are going to visit their websites – because they always went there, because internet surfing is very common and convenient for them on their tablet or simply because it's free. And you know, even the paid magazine apps for the iPad have a lot of adverts, no matter how well they're integrated or executed, so no excuse on that end. If your server statistics are going to tell you there are a lot of iPad Safari users on your website, what are you going to do? Block them and redirect them to your paid apps? Rather not, I guess (although I wouldn't be too surprised about such reaction).
And then again – and this refers to the point made above about limitations in the platform leading to better experiences because more clear decisions have to be made: many, many newspaper and magazine website interfaces are a mess nowadays. They have grown over many years and are mostly the result of dozens of compromises and quite often also victims of internal politics and infighting. As a user, we can feel the fuddy-duddy skirmish between marketing and editorial people on almost every single page. I'm talking about overcrowded start and section pages, weak navigational flows or readability, bothersome advertising displays and overlays, nasty tricks to get you to the site (SEO) and to keep you engaged on the site. Many things that have been designed to keep the system running instead of making great content available to a wide – and satisfied – user base. And I'd say clever browser extensions to hide banners – or third-party applications such as Instapaper to make text actually a joy to read are not the best possible solution, although they solve these problems for an ever-growing amount of people.
Are publishers trying to get rid of their newspaper or magazine website legacy? Does this, in combination with the illusion of refunding through app store paywalls, make them blindly rush on every new platform that sounds promising at first glance? Did anyone seriously ever think, this could save them – like, almost automatically?
I'm not saying publishers should not develop these apps for the iPad or tablets in general, or even sell them. I totally appreciate this early wave of – let's face it – experiments with a new mass market platform. Finally, even hard-nosed decisions makers seem to talk about interface design being part of their responsibility. And really, I was never as excited to engage with content as I am with the iPad – although I haven't found a silver bullet yet (and haven't touched any other tablet). Even doing showcases for PR reasons is fine, if they're treated as such. They might help us feel some kind of perspective, they're showing us unclaimed territory to be explored and have conversation around. All these discussions that are now raising, aren't they a really positive and good thing? Something that is really necessary to move forward?
I really think we should profoundly take into account what we learned from the web more than a decade ago – and how it evolved over the years. How people started to adopt it, and how they're using it now. We cannot avoid all mistakes, they're part of the game. But all kinds of people – designers, programmers, journalists, consultants, marketers etc. – that are now developing for the iPad have already worked in the digital world since mid or end of the nineties – and already went through an even quite similar early wave, when web design was about bridging print design to the digital world. As a designer, having spent many years on designing websites and software mainly for the desktop environment, I really feel excited like a kid again to experiment with new platforms such as mobile computing, tablets or the internet connected TV. That's a new kind of variety to deal with, a lot of new ground to explore. Time for fresh imagination, based on experience gathered over time, instead of just applying and repeating what already exists.
Ok, what I'm really asking myself: why isn't there a single great example of a newspaper or magazine website fully optimized for multitouch tablets? Something that is neither loveless accumulation of content cramped with countless ads nor the new school of multimedia enhanced ePaper/PDF-Reader thingie. Or am I just blind? Naive? Asking too early? Shouldn't we just start working on it?
One of my favorite newspaper web interfaces is the New York Times Skimmer. I was really curious to try it on the iPad, but it's actually not working that well. Isn't this an app (web-based or not) that is predestined to be experienced on a tablet computer? They have optimized the fast skimming scenario for the PC thru adding keyboard shortcuts. Why aren't there eg. multitouch gestures supported now, why isn't there a sophisticated article view …?
Wow, you're still here! I actually just started writing part III and trying really hard to keep it as short as possible. The harder I tried to keep it short, the longer it became – here's part III:
Even more thoughts on the iPad: Print vs. Web.
And some highly recommended reading on the topic of content treatment for the iPad:
WIRED on iPad: Just like a Paper Tiger…
I Prefer Safari to Content Apps On The iPad
Is This Really The Future of Magazines or Why Didn’t They Just Use HTML 5?
