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.

More on the HTML5 branding fallout

Jeremy Keith gives a nice summary of what the changes to the WHATWG spec mean in real terms:

I think this difference makes it clearer what each group is doing. It was a pretty confusing situation to have two groups working on two specs, both called HTML5. Now it’s clear that the WHATWG is working more like how browsers do: constantly evolving and implementing features rather than entire specifications. Meanwhile the W3C are working on having a development milestone of those features set in stone and labelled as the fifth revision to the HTML language …and I think that is also an important and worthy goal.

Meanwhile, Tantek Çelik passes comment on what this recent hiccup means for the W3C:

This was the perfect opportunity for W3C to stand up, show adherence to principles of precision, clarity, and provide leadership as their mission statement claims they (want to) do. All the things you would expect from a world-class standards organization.

They’ve done the opposite on all counts. Instead of providing precision and clarity, they’ve muddied the definition of HTML5 further with yet another “here’sour bucket of things we like which we’re going to call ‘HTML5′” message. Instead of leading they’ve followed the marketing messages from large corporations.

W3C’s Communications Team has failed us horribly and have only added to market confusion as to what “HTML5″ is.

So long, Facebook

For a little while now I’ve been thinking about leaving Facebook. It’s been fun and everything, but when I start to take an objective look at the contents of my “News” feed I started to notice some really unpleasant trends in the kinds of conversations which were going on there. There were a lot of things I didn’t really want to be reading; a lot of diatribes which made me wonder “do you not all realise that your comments are going public, for everyone to see?” It has really started to unnerve me that the “social” element of this “social network” was becoming a warts-and-all, competitive hive of everybody’s subconscious — and, quite frankly, I don’t know if I want to be exposed to that.

But, of course, like most people who threaten to leave and become clean: I realised I was addicted.

And of course, I’ve been clinging on by rationalising my Facebook addiction by using that age-old excuse: it’s an easy way to keep in touch with people. Bu really? A lot of the people I’m “friends” with on Facebook I haven’t spoken to in years — nor do I really want to speak to them. That’s not a judgement on them, it’s just that people move on; friends come and go; some keep in touch, others float away. Why do we feel the need to cling on to everybody, all of the time? I don’t need Facebook to keep me in touch with the people I care about: I have telephone numbers, email, skype, postal addresses for all of those people anyway.

What really swung me though, what really snapped me into cold realisation was reading this essay by Zadie Smith. It’s a fascinating, lengthy read. There’s some really insightful, philosophical thinking contained in there, but this particular passage really got me thinking:

When a human being becomes a set of data on a website like Facebook, he or she is reduced. Everything shrinks. Individual character. Friendships. Language. Sensibility. In a way it’s a transcendent experience: we lose our bodies, our messy feelings, our desires, our fears. It reminds me that those of us who turn in disgust from what we consider an overinflated liberal-bourgeois sense of self should be careful what we wish for: our denuded networked selves don’t look more free, they just look more owned.

With Facebook, Zuckerberg seems to be trying to create something like a Noosphere, an Internet with one mind, a uniform environment in which it genuinely doesn’t matter who you are, as long as you make “choices” (which means, finally, purchases). If the aim is to be liked by more and more people, whatever is unusual about a person gets flattened out. One nation under a format. To ourselves, we are special people, documented in wonderful photos, and it also happens that we sometimes buy things. This latter fact is an incidental matter, to us. However, the advertising money that will rain down on Facebook—if and when Zuckerberg succeeds in encouraging 500 million people to take their Facebook identities onto the Internet at large—this money thinks of us the other way around. To the advertisers, we are our capacity to buy, attached to a few personal, irrelevant photos.

I’ve realised that when it comes down to it, it’s not the content of my Facebook feed which I have a gripe with — after all: I choose who my friends are, and I choose to read or not read what’s going on in my social network. No, it’s the idea of my virtual personality being diluted down to a prescribed format; having my online activities influenced by omnipotent software; essentially, having my online self owned. Facebook has been created as a vision of an idealistic future dictated by one man: Mark Zuckerberg. I find that really quite scary, because history teaches us that one-man dictatorships can have a huge influence over societies, and the authority they wield can make people do horrible things.

So, I’m going to be exporting my data, updating my address book and then I’ll be leaving the hive mind. Don’t worry, I’ll still be able to keep tabs on you all if I like; I can always take one more hit by just running a search for you in Google. It’s likely that Facebook’s default privacy settings are broadcasting your every activity to the wider world, right now.

HTML is the new HTML5

The W3C have released a new logo for HTML5 in a fanfare of hyperbole:

It stands strong and true, resilient and universal as the markup you write. It shines as bright and as bold as the forward-thinking, dedicated web developers you are. It’s the standard’s standard, a pennant for progress. And it certainly doesn’t use tables for layout.

Seems like an admirable initiative on the surface of it, but you only have to pass a cursory glance over the FAQ to see why this logo has got so many people wound up:

The logo is a general-purpose visual identity for a broad set of open web technologies, including HTML5, CSS, SVG, WOFF, and others.

The problem is that HTML5 shouldn’t be used as an umbrella term for a group of associated technologies. HTML5 is a markup language, and using the term to describe a group of other technologies is just wrong. Jeremy Keith summarises the gripes with this misappropriation:

What we have here is a deliberate attempt to further blur the lines between separate technologies that have already become intertwingled in media reports.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t mind if marketers and journalists use HTML5 to mean everything under the sun, but I expect working web developers to be able to keep specs separate in their mind. If Apple or Google were pushing this kind of fuzziness, I wouldn’t mind …but this is coming straight from the horse’s mouth (or, in this case, straight from the horse’s ass).

This logo branding nonsense is a real clanger by the W3C. Rather of quietly than facilitating the wider adoption and standardisation of web technologies, instead they’re trying to evangelise and influence the web ecosystem at the expense of muddying already murky waters.

The W3C strayed way off the path of web innovation when it set about specifying XHTML, and it took the strong-arming of WHATWG to get HTML5 back on the agenda at W3C. WHATWG has always been more responsive to what browser vendors and web developers are demanding by “paving the cowpaths”. Looks like this little branding exercise might just have been the catalyst for another shift in their approach.

While the W3C are making pretty pictures, WHATWG have announced:

  1. The HTML specification will henceforth just be known as “HTML”, with the URL http://whatwg.org/html. (We will also continue to maintain the Web Applications 1.0 specification that contains HTML and a number of related APIs like Web Storage, Web Workers, and Server-Sent Events.)
  2. The WHATWG HTML spec can now be considered a “living standard”. It’s more mature than any version of the HTML specification to date, so it made no sense for us to keep referring to it as merely a draft. We will no longer be following the “snapshot” model of spec development, with the occasional “call for comments”, “call for implementations”, and so forth.

What this means is that the version numbering of HTML will be dropped: HTML5 will now just be referred to as HTML. It also means that as of now, WHATWG are considering their specification to be a standard — it will change, mature and evolve over time, but what they’re essentially is: the new version of HTML is production-ready.

This is a significant shift and it makes a lot of sense: most switched-on web developers have been using the new standard for quite some time.

UPDATE: Appears that the W3C have listened to the cacophony of noise surrounding their definition of what the HTML5 logo represents, and they’ve changed the FAQ to define it as:

This logo represents HTML5, the cornerstone for modern Web applications.

This is a good thing. But has the damage already been done? Has the W3C already tarred their reputation by showing themselves to be out of touch with opinion in the web development world (which can be vociferous at best)?

HTML5 elements in Internet Explorer without Javascript

Elco Klingen has written up his exploration into a technique for support of HTML5 elements without the need for Javascript tweaking.

Most browsers will support styling of HTML5 named elements using CSS, even if they don’t properly support or recognise those elements. Internet Explorer is the exception to the rule, and doesn’t apply styling to the new elements — it takes the approach that if it’s not part of the doctype spec, then there’s no point in even trying to parse the CSS.

Elco on the approach:

The solution is actually pretty simple; put the new HTML5 elements in their own namespace. By doing so, Internet Explorer skips checking (and collapsing) the new elements and they display just fine. It’s the same method as styling an XML document with CSS and Internet Explorer displays that just fine, too.

It’s a technique I played around with a few weeks ago, and — although quite clever — isn’t really useful in any practical way. Instead of using an <section> element, you instead need to use a namespaced version, like <html5:section>. The reason I abandoned the use of this technique was because it creates more problems than it solves, and your not using a very convoluted strain of HTML5 — if we’re trying to standardise things with HTML5, then this kind of technique just muddies the waters.

It’s a commendable attempt at solving an irritating problem though: I really wish basic support for HTML5 elements could be enabled without the need for scripting. I’ve tried a few techniques and have yet to find the holy grail. I’ve tried several methods of tweaking the doctype to include the new elements, but to no avail. I even looked at using an HTC file to wrestle things into shape, but since any transformations on the DOM require scripting, that was a dead-end.

The closest I got was to use XSLT to transform the document – effectively swapping out every instance of an HTML5 element with a division which identified the element type with a class name, like <div class="article">. Since Internet Explorer has good support for XSLT this is a very reliable technique, but with one major drawback: for it to work, the document has to be served up as an XML file. Aside from the complications that creates for how you serve up your documents — particularly if they’re scripted — it causes havoc for other browsers.

So, sadly, it looks like Javascript is the only way to do it, for now.

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:

The WordPress iPad app as it appears by default

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

The WordPress iPad app, with the native "White on black" setting activated

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:

The iPad Twitter app, with the native "White on black" setting activated

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:

The WordPress iPad app using the native Zoom controls

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

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.

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.

The 1140 Grid

Another contender in the one-grid-to-rule-them-all category: the 1140 grid is designed to be fluid, right down to a mobile version:

The 1140 grid fits perfectly into a 1280 monitor. On smaller monitors it becomes fluid and adapts to the width of the browser.

Beyond a certain point it uses media queries to serve up a mobile version, which essentially stacks all the columns on top of each other so the flow of information still makes sense.

It’s a nice, simple idea explained in a very clear and concise way.

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.