Digital edition of What Hi-fi? Sound and Vision - your feedback, please

[Clare Newsome]

As regular users of these Forums will know, we've been discussing for some time the provisional of a digital edition of the magazine - both to ensure overseas readers get their copies at the same time as UK subscribers, but also so you have access to a searchable archive of issues.

We did a trial last year that (for many reasons) wasn't right, but have since been actively exploring other options. One of these is a system currently being used by one of our sister titles - Autosport.

You can view a trial digital issue of Autosport here.

I'd appreciate any feedback (positive or negative) about the usability of this particular digital magazine solution, plus any other comments you have on the idea.

Thanks!

 

[idc]

I have been playing about with it and it is genius. I would definitely subscribe to a What Hifi version of that.

Would you be able to download and save your copies?

That would take up a lot of memory, so would you also have online access to the copies you have subscribed to?

Would you be able to save specific pages or articles?

 

[Clare Newsome]

Yep, questions are good, too - i'll answer these and more tomorrow morning. Keep the thoughts coming!

 

[Anonymous]

I sort of like the idea, very green. But I can't help but secondguessing the point when you already have an excellent website. The WHF website is much easier to use (and to publish I imagine) than this digital mag. For instance: not being to able to search digital articles seems backward to me. I do understand WHF needs to make money, but then why not simply charge for a memberzone on this website?

Comments on the digital mag example:

I'd get rid of the fat borders around the page. On default zoom level, the pages use half of my screen. The rest is occupied by the red Autosport banner and a couple of buttons that could easily be placed in a pull down or mouse-over menu.

The 50 and 75% zoom percentages aren't very useful since the text is so low res. A higher resolution type should improve things. The pics also seem lowres as well.

Edit: I could think of many more examples why the website can offer a much more valuable experience to subscribers than this mag in digital form. More video reviews, high resolution pics, music reviews with short soundbytes, hyperlinks to manf. websites, etc.

 

[idc]

Kevin, your suggestions appear to be more related to expanding and improving the forum. I think What hifi would be better offering a digital subscription than a pay to join website. I think that subscribers to the magazine, both paper and digital would not be too happy having to shell out more to join the 'members zone'.

 

[Superaintit]

Clare,

I think the digital copy of Autosport is a great idea. Some improvements I would suggest are:

-changing the default zoom factor of the mag to fit the browser's screen. I have a 19 inch screen, but when I flick through the mag, the text becomes unreadable. I'd like it best if I could read and flick through it, just like the real mag.

-add video reviews and/or extra's to certain pages

 

[nads]

not a fan of that format. unless you have 100 zoom the text is rubbish to read. Only having zoom or no zoom is a pain. very hard to get a feel of the "Mag"

paper format does not really work on the screen. also no full screen option?

not really readable where i tend to read most monthly mags.

where i have seen this format work well in is a preview of the current/next

 

[idc]

I think this is how it is supposed to be, for me I click on a page and it grows and is out of focus for a few seconds, then it is crystal clear and easy to read. Having to scroll down the page is not a problem.

 

[nads]

try it at 50 or 70% zoom.

 

[Dave_]

Like the idea of digital editions and would proabably subscribe.But not in the current format,its nasty!!!

The zoom function is poor, at100% the images lose definition, and anything less than 100% the text is unreadable.

 

[JoelSim]

Would be good if you could zoom in and scroll when zoomed.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:Kevin, your suggestions appear to be more related to expanding and improving the forum. I think What hifi would be better offering a digital subscription than a pay to join website. I think that subscribers to the magazine, both paper and digital would not be too happy having to shell out more to join the 'members zone'.

I understand what you mean, and some people might feel that way, but that's just irrational. There is no difference between subscribing to a digital magazine and subscribing to a premium part of a website. Only the format is different, and the format of a website is far superior for the reasons I mentioned. The negative perception you described could probably be fixed with smart marketing.

The idea of a digital mag just feels wanting. It takes away the good things of a printed mag (holding a print and browsing through it, duh) and hardly scratches the surface of all the good stuff a digital format can offer (except for distribution and environment benefits).

 

[Andrew Everard]

Don't think anyone's suggesting we're going to abandon the print mag - far from it, as the market leader by a massive margin, and with licenced editions around the world.

Rather the digital version would serve a number of functions, as Clare suggested, not least of which would be allowing overseas subscribers to have the magazine on the same day as it goes on sale in the UK, and hopefully at a more sensible price than that imposed by having to ship large amounts of paper around the world.

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's a great idea although I am a very frequent computer user. The added functionality and I expect revenue will soon become apparent and enjoyed.

To try to answer a previous question, an average size magazine comes from anywhere between 50mb and 100mb dependent on graphics/sound/extras e.t.c.

 

[Craig M.]

not being able to scroll while zoomed is pretty annoying. and echo the 50% + 75% zoom comments.

 

[professorhat]

I like it a lot - my screen is a 24" 1080p screen so maybe this is a factor, but, once I've clicked to zoom, the text is easily readable and the drag to move around the screen is very natural for me - not sure if that's years of reading PDFs or what. Only thing that would be nice is if the scroll on the mouse controlled up and down movement.

If subscribers received both the digital and paper editions at the same price we're paying now I'd be very happy with this, but I wouldn't want to pay more for both or have to choose between the two (though clearly I can understand the idea of a cheaper subscription option of only receiving the digital edition, especially for overseas folk).

EDIT - Ooo, an iPhone edition would be nice too

 

[SpiceWeasel]

It's the first time I have had a play with a digital magazine, but I like it. I love the way the pages flip over and the interface is really simple and easy to use, even a complete technophobe would have no problems navigating through the magazine

As others have said the text becomes blurry if you change the zoom level from 100%, on 75% it looks like they have used an old worn out typewriter as the text is hard to make out and looks to be faded. It looks like a poor quality fax of the original 100% version.

A full screen option would be nice, although I don't know how this would look on different resolutions. My monitor is a 20" widescreen with a 1680x1050 resolution.

It would be good if you could click on the photos seperately and they would then show up scaled to fit the screen resolution (high res pictures), the photo on page 30 is a good example. If you click on the page in either single page or double page zoom the resolution of the picture is greater than my monitor (or the space between the boarders of the page). So you could click on the picture once to show a full screen scaled picture and then if needed click on it again to view at 100% to see the small details, another click to return to the page. This feature would be really handy for double page photos, and ideally work the same on either single or double page zoom.

EDIT: This is my last one as I really need to go to bed, wouldn't it be good if you clicked on a picture and it would then appear as a larger 3d model. You could then view an amp for example from different angles and even have a look at the rear

 

[Clare Newsome]

All excellent comments - keep 'em coming!

As Andrew stresses, this isn't an 'either/or', nor even the solution we may go for - we're investigating a range of possibilities. And yes, that includes iPhone apps, e-Readers etc etc, and subscription-only additional areas of the website.

But we're not rushing into anything - whatever we do, we want it to be right, and to enhance (not restrict) what we offer.

We've invested - and continue to invest - a huge amount in our content, and want as many people as possible worldwide to enjoy access to it

So, more feedback please!

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

I think its a great idea and a good excuse to put a pc in the bathroom.

From a storage point of view,the ability to save a stripped down version (the buying guide/ adverts removed and possibly even pictures removed as these can usually be found on manfacturers website) would be useful, or even a section by section and article by article file save (depending on complexity)

Maybe also a soundtrack of all reviews/articles included for the visually impaired .

 

[nads]

Ok so now I am at work.1600X1200 screen the 100% has a better feeling than on the laptop at home. But as we have a **** porr connection (my home connection is 8-10 Mbit/s).



when at full zoom and changing pages the refresh takes 22secs. and when going from normal view to 100Ï about 30secs.

what is the average connection speed in the UK ?

 

[Andrew Everard]

Points taken, but then that could be solved if the magazine offered a download version, rather than a view online.

 

[nads]

Andrew Everard:Points taken, but then that could be solved if the magazine offered a download version, rather than a view online.

indeed, and on that side of things i would suggest that it should not use any propriety software. (for the PC download). I would nice to read it on the Work PC at lunch, if some software needed installing it may case problems. (unless it can be run on a flash stick).

 

[Andrew Everard]

As far as I know, proprietary software could well be the only way we can ensure that only those who have subscribed are able to read it. After all, we don't want to just give the whole magazine away for free.

 

[Tom Moreno]

Andrew Everard:Points taken, but then that could be solved if the magazine offered a download version, rather than a view online.

I like the idea of this, especially offering the ability to download it and view offline. This isn't because I have a slow tinterweb connection, but more because I use a Mac and viewing the Autosport example via Flash in the browser had my CPU pegged at 90% and if I was looking to browse through the mag on my laptop at home I'd burn through my jeans and scald my thighs in no time, and still wouldn't know the outcome of the 50" 3D tv group test! The other point is that I am a happy subscriber to the print mag and wouldn't want to switch from that as it's a much looked forward to part of the month, I would love to see this offered on an "in addition to" basis to people with print subscriptions. Currently I have the last year of WHF issues sitting on my shelf (and my wife keeps informing me that we really don't have the room for all them) and being able to keep the back issues in digital form would be such a great proposition.

Looking forward to how this all plays out.

 

[Clare Newsome]

To re-iterate - the print magazine isn't going anywhere; this is purely investigating additional options for consumption of our content.