theTeam.

Publishing on the iPad

By Phil Whitehouse 01 Jun 2010.
0 comments

There's little debate that the iPad will be a roaring success, and customers will be demanding content via this format very soon, if they're not already. Publishing on the iPad is more complex than it seems, so I thought I'd share some early thoughts on how to approach this challenge.

There are numerous ways to get written content onto an iPad, ranging from the cheap and cheerful through to expensive and sophisticated. The cheap options include simply sharing a file which can be opened on an iPad (pdf works quite well, and files in the 'ePub' publishing format can open in the iBooks application). It might even make sense to simply make sure that your content renders well on your website when seen on an iPad.

Depending on budget, readership, business model, the competitive landscape and other factors, there may well be justification for creating a bespoke iPad application. Even if competitors aren't yet publishing on the iPad, there's a good chance they will be soon – and there's a lot to be said for first-mover advantage.

The cost and effort of creating and maintaining such an application is comparable to creating a website. So the decision-making process at the start is critical to success.

One of the first considerations will be the business model. Do you charge for the application and/or each issue? What about advertising? What about subscriptions? What about sponsored publications? Again, this is an area where there will be much experimentation. As Popular Science editor-in-chief Mark Jannot says "we'll see what the market can bear".

If you do decide to create a bespoke application for the iPad, there are quite a few things to consider to make sure the end user experience is as simple and enjoyable as possible. Two of the main issues would be consideration around touch gestures and orientation.

After experimenting with a few apps (Financial Times, Wired, Popular Science, The New York Times, Epicurious, Marvel), I've found that various gestural paradigms have been explored, and the lack of consistency across multiple apps is difficult for a user to process.

For example, the Wired app is pretty intuitive – a single finger swipe to turn pages – while the Popular Science app has several lessons to learn before you can navigate without thinking.

While various publishers are experimenting with different gestures, the ones most likely to gain traction with users are those that are most familiar. Innovation should, of course, be encouraged but with respect to the user.

Orientation change on the iPad (going between portrait and landscape) is much more of a problem than with the iPhone. The smaller screen on the latter means that the width is simply increased or decreased when the screen is rotated. However, the iPad screen size allows for a more complex screen architecture, meaning that it's easier to lose where you were after orientation change. This is called 'context shift'.

You need to give some thought to the various states the user context may be in when they switch orientation. If, say, someone is halfway through a task when they switch orientation, they should be able to resume their task without breaking stride.

While it's interesting to criticise the early iPad applications, the fact remains that these pioneers are doing a great job showcasing the potential of this new device. The onus is on us to make sure that users get the same amount of pleasure out of using the device as we get sharing our content and design with the world.