A severely injured survivor of the 7/7 bombings has created a smartphone app to help people with disabilities travel around London more easily.
Applications
Jan 20, 2012
The distribution of iBooks 2 content
Yesterday, Apple announced the launch of iBooks 2, and an audacious initiative to modernise the textbook industry. As part of the launch, they also announced the release of iBooks Author, a free tool for creating and publishing eBooks.
I’ve not had a chance to play with it myself yet, but it looks like a very slick, well-made and easy-to-use tool for creating interactive books — something which has been missing from the market for far too long.
I’ve seen a fair bit of negative talk on Twitter though, mainly about the terms of Apple’s SLA and how books created with iBooks Author can be distributed. The short story is that if you’re planning to sell your publication, you have to distribute it through Apple’s store — you’re forbidden from distributing through any other means. Seems to many like a dictatorial move from Apple, but David Smith has an interesting take on this:
The real story here today shouldn’t be that Apple has ‘audaciously’ claimed ownership of the books make with iBooks Author but that they have created an avenue for non-commercial distribution that would exclude thementirely. That is actually unprecedented.
If I create a textbook using iBooks Author and then decide to made it freely available to the world (à la Khan Academy) I can do that without any restriction. Simple click ‘Export’ within iBook Author and the resulting file can be distributed by any means I choose and then loaded in iBooks. The mind boggles at what things may come out of this.
All Apple is doing with this restriction is saying that if you directly profit from this free tool and platform that we have created, then we deserve our cut. Which seems entirely fair to me.
And John Gruber has followed up on this with an interesting point about the HTML5 foundation of this iBooks format:
Second, it’s about not wanting iBooks Author to serve as an authoring tool for competing bookstores like Amazon’s or Google’s. The output of iBooks Author is, as far as I can tell, HTML5 — pretty much ePub 3 with whatever nonstandard liberties Apple saw fit to take in order to achieve the results they wanted. It’s not a standard format in the sense of following a spec from a standards body like the W3C, but it’s just HTML5 rendered by WebKit — not a binary blob tied to iOS or Cocoa. It may not be easy, but I don’t think it would be that much work for anyone else with an ePub reader that’s based on WebKit to add support for these iBooks textbooks. Apple is saying, “Fuck that, unless you’re giving it away for free.”
Worth noting that Apple pitched their launch event at the education market, and they’re probably already a long way down the road with making deals with educational institutions (Apple has a track-record of quietly making individual, private deals in the education sector). Amazon et al have had a massive head-start in the ePublishing sector, but none of them have been audacious enough (or powerful enough) to make these kinds of bold moves into education.
Apple are doing a very clever thing here: they’re making efforts to put iPads into the hands of young adopters. Talk about brand exposure!
Jan 26, 2011
The old print model just doesn’t work
In an article comparing the latest crop of paid-for newspaper apps, Rory Cellan-Jones picks up on what is lacking from a traditional approach to publishing on digital devices: He says of The Times iPad app:
What it does not do is take advantage of those things that online products can deliver which a paper cannot. Search, for instance, is absent – trying to find out whether today’s Times has an article on a particular subject means flicking through every section.
More seriously, the app is not a “live” newspaper – what you get each morning is the edition that went to bed about the time you did. Take today’s iPad Times for instance. There is a long article about Apple and the challenges it faces from rivals now that Steve Jobs is taking sick leave.
But not only does it quote a share price that is way out of date – the 6% fall at Tuesday’s NASDAQ opening – it also fails to mention the startlingly good results published at 2130 GMT on Tuesday evening.
This shows exactly why the old print model just doesn’t translate effectively to the digital world — modern-day journalism needs to be responsive; be more relevant.
News groups appear to be groping in the dark, unsure of what readers want from an app.
What readers want from an app is what readers have been getting from the web: searchable, relevant, up-to-date journalism and content. But they want that experience to be enhanced through the use of intelligent, intuitive design which digital devices can provide.
Jan 26, 2011
Publishers aren’t learning from the web
Oliver Bothwell ponders the current state of publication apps on tablets, concluding that publishers just aren’t learning lessons from the web:
And now it is quite easy to see why the media apps are failing. They are all difficult to navigate requiring too many swipes, flicks and scrolls to find things. Eureka has a lovely opening navigation and the magazines have contents pages but where are the search bars? Have they learnt nothing from the web? Where are the related articles, tags and comments. They are not taking advantage of the fundamental tools available to them. Instead they are creating gimmicky apps without any real substance. Media companies are changing but without realising what is their best asset, their quality journalism and ability to edit, which they sacrifice to fads and pointless interactive content. Newspaper and magazine sales are down because the internet allows easy consumption and access to lots of information; the only way to start making money is by championing this in their apps and combining with excellent user-interface and editorial design. At the moment there isn’t an app which is better to use than the newspaper or website equivalent and this should be worrying to an ailing industry. The approach is entirely wrong; it is not the content that is the problem, it’s the way it’s being presented.
I’ve, personally, yet to find a media app which feels “right” — even the very popular and innovative Flipboard doesn’t fit the bill, for the may of the reasons that Oliver flags up: too many swipes, no way to effectively filter and search.
Dec 14, 2010
Native iPad accessibility: is it enough?
I’m writing this on a shiny new iPad, having finally made the leap from laptop to tablet. I’m finding the experience generally wonderful & it’s certainly proving a much more comfortable and convenient way to navigate online spaces. I’ve yet to really get to grips with using the keyboard for any serious amounts of writing – touch typing is a while new learning curve – but I think practice will make perfect in the department.
One of the reasons I was keen to give this device a proper road test was to explore the accessibility features. I need to work up close a lot of the time and regularly use the built-in zoom tool on my desktop and notebook Macs. I also tend to vary the screen brightness depending on the task at hand and the lighting conditions. So seeing how I could adapt my iPad experience to make it as comfortable as I could was top of my priority list.
Being able to selectively zoom the whole screen using simple three finger gestures is great, and is a welcome complement to the two finger pinch-and-zoom functionality found in Mobile Safari. And being to invert the screen colours can be a helpful aid when contrast is making my reading or writing experience uncomfortable or tirimg.
Here’s an example to help you understand what I mean.
I’m currently writing this with the WordPress iPad app, which would ordinarily look like this:

I’ve tweaked the UI though, by switching to “White on black” through the accessibility settings – so my screen actually looks like this:

It’s a simple, but really useful feature, which eases the strain on my eyes and makes for a more productive and comfortable experience. It’s not perfect though: the setting simply applies a filter to the whole screen to invert all colours. So although black on white, or greyscale interface elements like the keyboard translate well, the contrast of other UI elements is actually reduced. Just compare the “Save” and “Publish” buttons in the top of those previous screenshots for an example of what I mean.
These little quibbles are bearable when it’s just text-related content, but it becomes a very disorienting experience when it comes to using apps which feature more graphical and illustrative elements. Browsing my Twitter stream, as an example, shows everybody’s avatars in a strange, inverted x-ray fashion:

Notice too that because the whole screen is inverted, the subdued dark background which frames the central stream is now hemmed in by two large zaps of light, which detract from the high contrast of the main content.
Page zooming is also great in many situations, but starts to have failings when it comes to creating content, as opposed to just consuming it. Using the WordPress app as an example again, the very clever screen zooming can start to prove cumbersome. The default text size in the app is pretty small, and can’t be changed. Ideally, I’d prefer to be able to zoom in on it while I type – look what happens though:

Because the entire screen has been enlarged, the keyboard is now practically unusable. So, I just have to guess-type and proofread later on.
Of course, these are just restrictions of these particular assistive tools, and I’m trying to push them beyond what they were designed for. They’re assistive, and can’t be expected to fix the varied needs of different users for every application – one size doesn’t fit all.
But I think it does highlight the number of mainstream apps which are being developed without the consideration of simple, adaptive accessibility features.
Perhaps that’s because Apple have done such a good job of implementing OS-level accessibility: developers don’t see the need to worry about it, safe in the knowledge that at least a basic level of access will be baked right in. I also suspect that in some cases, it’s due to a certain amount of preciousness over pixel-perfect design treatments (and if you remember the terrible trend for pixel fonts on the web at the turn of the century, you’ll know just what kind of route to hell that can lead you down).
But I think it’s important for developers of these apps to consider extra features which allow users to adapt their experience to suit their particular needs or preferences. Simple things like allowing users to choose text sizes, change colour palettes, adjust white space and remove clutter are all simple and effective ways to allow more granular control, enabling the user to adapt their experience so that it’s more comfortable and enjoyable.
Twiiter for iPad is just one example of an app which could quite easily be improved in this respect. Twitter for iPhone allows me to change the font size for tweets throughout the app; but the iPad app is missing that feature, and I would really like to have it. It wouldn’t compromise the design of the app, but with that one simple feature, it would allow me to enhance my experience while using the app.
This post was prompted by the fact that I was considering a purchase of the iA’s Writer app, which is an absolutely awesome distraction-free writing application: simple, elegant and impeccably designed. But when I was trying to find out more about it, I noticed that all of the screenshots showed black text on a White background. I wanted to know if the app supported a setting for white text on black – I really don’t want to spend lengthy periods of time staring at so much whiteness.
Turns out that it doesn’t have that feature, but I bought it anyway because I can use the “white on black” setting built in to the OS – despite it’s annoyances.
But why not include that feature? Why should I have to use generic assistive features when more granular, app-specific settings would do a much better job? The lack of this kind of feature was almost a deal-breaker for me, but when I considered the alternatives, I decided that iA Writer was best-suited to my approach to working, even with the clunky white-on-black compromise.
But I think that summarises my point quite nicely: why compromise? Despite all of it’s little idiosyncrasies and faults, The iPad is a wonderful, enabling device. But I wonder if a lack of imagination amongst the developers of its apps might be stifling that enabling power for a huge number of people looking for a more assistive experience?
Notes
- I’m not singling out the iA Writer app for criticism here – I think it’s a wonderful application. I’m just using it as a real-world example of where I’ve had a desire for a feature which would improve my personal experience of their product. And the iA team were very forthcoming with feedback when I contacted them about it on Twitter.
- While writing this post, I found that the WordPress app was just too cumbersome and buggy for serious writing, and so switched over to using the iA Writer app in earnest instead. It proved a much more comfortable experience, and the default font size is just perfect for my needs: not too small, not too large. The distraction-free approach really does suit the iPad’s form factor and will prove to be particularly beneficial for many disabled users who are overwhelmed by the usual breed of text editors.
- As I’ve written previously, when considering accessibility features, it’s not just disabled users who benefit. Thinking of accessibility as something which only helps people with disabilities is very misguided.
Nov 22, 2010
Murdoch set to launch a tablet-only newspaper
When NewsCorp announced that they were taking online version of The Times behind a subscription-only firewall, I was -like many – quite sneering and derogatory about the idea: a paysite for news content just seemed like such a ridiculous idea when the web is a boiling pot of free and diverse news and opinion.
But there was something about the idea which seemed quite intriguing. Aside from the ballsiness of it: whether the project fails or succeeds, it will prove to be an informative case study in present day, mainstream news consumption. And I also had an inkling that the wily Murdoch was up to something else: using The Times as a test bed for something more ambitious; something even ballsier.
And it appears my inklings were spot on. Edward Helmore at The Guardian has reported:
Rupert Murdoch, head of the media giant News Corp, and Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, are preparing to unveil a new digital “newspaper” called the Daily at the end of this month, according to reports in the US media.
The collaboration, which has been secretly under development in New York for several months, promises to be the world’s first “newspaper” designed exclusively for new tablet-style computers such as Apple’siPad, with a launch planned for early next year.
Intended to combine “a tabloid sensibility with a broadsheet intelligence”, the publication represents Murdoch’s determination to push the newspaper business beyond the realm of print.
This is big news. Really big news. Not only because Apple appear to be on board as advocates of the pilot of this kind of distribution, but because the newspaper print industry is in freefall, and is desperate to find a new, proven model for distribution which eradicates the need for lumbering, restrictive print plants. But they can’t make that jump until they can be sure that advertisers and their revenue will follow suit. The tide is ready for turning though, as Horace Dediu notes in this really insightful piece at Asymco:
But if you keep following the money from the revenue side, you realize that the situation is critical. In the US, a large part of the local paper’s revenue base was wiped out by Craig’s list. Classifieds are a fading memory. With respect to regular ads, the story is almost as bad. 26% of ad spend in 2009 was allocated to print, while only 12% of time spent consuming media was spent on it. In contrast, Internet use is at 28% of time where only 13% of ad dollars are allocated.
So, if NewsCorp jumps, and they prove successful in this new, evolving model, then surely the rest of the newspaper industry will – out of necessity and pure survival instinct – have to make the leap in our to remain viable. It’s going to be an interesting one to watch, both economically and technically. And I can’t help wondering how much Steve Jobs might be conspiring to add to Apple’s profit margins through this deal.
Nov 22, 2010
Tablet Reading Experience for Any Browser
This is pretty neat. The Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit research organization based has created an HTML5 project designed to make lengthy stories palatable for readers using desktop and mobile browsers. You can see a demo of it here, and Mashable have featured it in a recent article:
Content is displayed in a horizontal, widescreen format devoid of distracting banner ads and links to other content. Users can pull up a left-hand navigation bar to navigate between story sections, and click on arrows to tab between individual pages. The size and amount of text on display adjusts according to the size of the browser.
Since the template (created in conjunction with digital reading platform Treesaver) is rendered in HTML5, the format is entirely mobile-friendly, bringing the app experience not only to desktops, but to any mobile device with an up-to-date web browser as well.
It’s also significantly cheaper to produce than a mobile app for a complex operating system like iOS or Android, meaning that more news organizations will be able to render digital, app-like experiences without hiring a developer.
Really interesting to see this kind of development going on, which is in direct contrast to the walled-garden, proprietary solutions for online publication which have been adopted by the mainstream so far.
Nov 22, 2010
Voiceover added to Apple TV
In another move towards improving accessibility for users of it’s technology, Apple are rolling out support for Voiceover with the latest 4.1 Apple TV software update. Macworld reports:
The other major feature added with the Apple TV 4.1 software is support for VoiceOver, or spoken menus. This feature can be enabled from the Accessibility submenu of the General menu under Settings. After enabling VoiceOver, the user can set the speed of the voice, from default (pretty fast) to very fast (John Moschitta territory) to slow (normal).
VoiceOver not only reads the name of the menu item you’re on, but it does a good job of reading metadata, including episode descriptions of TV shows. It definitely enables someone with vision problems to navigate through the Apple TV menu system.
I think it’s great that Apple are taking the time to include this kind of thing in their consumer products. Accessibility in most home entertainment systems is pretty lacking, and is something which desperately needs to improve. I personally hat having to negotiate text-heavy PVR menus and iPlayer services through the TV, and have been craving a more responsive way of navigating my media life for years.
Interesting that Boxee (the other potentially big player in the TV media box gadget arena, reviewed in detail by Jon Hicks), lacks any kind of accessible features. I find it interesting that accessibility is taken so seriously in the online space, but we don’t tend to think of it as being important in the world of entertainment. I think that’s going to change as more and more of our entertainment moves online, and interactivity becomes an increasingly important part of engaging with our media: excluded elements of society are going to become more prominent and vocal.
Nov 8, 2010
Developers don’t rush to new platforms
Great analysis from Marco Arment about the misconception that developers will instantly flock to a new platform:
A common fallacy is assuming that any new platform in an exciting market — recently, smartphones and tablet computers — will be flooded with developers as soon as it’s released, as if developers are just waiting outside the gates, hungrily waiting to storm in.
In two recent cases, that’s exactly what happened: the iPhone and the iPad. (And probably the Mac App Store next.) So important people, including the tech press, consumers, and many hardware manufacturers themselves, assume that every new hardware platform will be greeted with the same rush of high-quality software.
It’s really worth reading the full article, which proposes that the iPhone and iPad development ecosystem is thriving so much for three reasons: dogfooding, install base and profitability. And he concludes with this question:
Now, consider this fall’s tablet computers. Can you say with confidence thatany of them will address these three needs well enough, and for enough developers, to ensure a steady supply of quality software?
Nov 3, 2010
A hint at Facebook’s plans for tablets
Ben Parr summarises his opportunity to quiz Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Mobile VP Erik Tseng on Facebook’s plans for the iPad:
After a bit more back-and-forth between Zuckerberg and me, Tseng stepped in to explain that Facebook is still trying to figure out its approach and strategy for tablet devices. Because tablets are a new form factor, it requires a new approach.
The real hint to Facebook’s iPad plans, though, is that Tseng focused on the form factor and not iOS. This could mean that Facebook’s looking to build an HTML5 version of its website optimized for tablets. At the very least, Facebook seems intent on keeping a consistent experience across all tablet devices.
What’s most telling though, is Zuckerberg’s response when asked about the iPad at a mobile press event:
iPad’s not mobile. Next question.
Twitter