Marketing tablet version comes in for some criticism for execution
The launch onto the Apple Newsstand of a tablet edition of Marketing, Canada's trade publication for the advertising and marketing industry, comes in for some criticism from the U.S. blog Talking New Media, which calls it "sloppy".
The app itself has promise, but the work here is less than first rate. If I were the publisher of Marketing I would be irate. But then again I always was a stickler for proper editing and design work [says Douglas Hebbard].
Left: The single-sponsor ad from Metro pops up as the first page of the latest edition; Middle: the editor's column was, it seems, poorly edited – the text abruptly ends mid-sentence, something I have seen in other tablet editions lately; Right: the page looks like a replica edition with its first word hyphenated (1) until one sees the swiping navigation at the top (2). But the page layout philosophy is definitely replica as the picture is sliced in half (3) and the reader needs to move to the next page to see the rest of the layout.
Labels: tablets
posted by D. B. Scott at
12:52 pm
3 Comments:
Whoa! Slow news day, DB? Have you even tried the Marketing app? The source you pull from cites that running out of real estate on a page and continuing a column on, you know, the next page is "poor editing?" Speaking of which, for someone who claims to be a "a stickler for proper editing and design work" that blog entry is porous. If you'd like, I can send you a screen grab of it with non-sensical red arrows proving my point. My team lives and dies on user feedback, but not when it cites non-existent negligence presented as gospel and disseminated in a respected blog like yours. Our first issue has a lot to improve on, but it's not sloppy. Reserved maybe, but not sloppy.
I can understand when the word "sloppy" provokes a response, however it's curious that it led you to shoot the messenger. By the way there was a screengrab on the blog showing the red arrows to which you refer.
Sorry, I was referring to the quality of the blog entry by the source that you cited, not you. I would never shoot the source of my daily industry hit. Like I said, yours is a respected outlet so when you reprinted someone's criticism that was based on being forced to turn a page, it needed some context and clarification.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home