Hard News: iPad Impressions
360 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
I recall other Twitter apps I looked into that included pictures, etc in the stream
Sure, but do they look like this?
-
Well Facebook doesn't generally show you the content that people link to so no - it does more than Facebook
I don't want to see the whole content (which is why I don't read full RSS content on Google reader), just the title and beginning and maybe a picture so I can decide whether to click through. Which is exactly what Facebook does. I wouldn't want Facebook to start giving me more than that - so on consideration I think I might stay with the status quo.
Sure, but do they look like this?
Based on that picture, that's what Tweetdeck looks like, which is to say ghastly :-)
-
(A question about Flipboard: from the little promo and from what you're saying, SteveH, it seems to reformat the content inside itself. But that's based on RSS, yes? So for instance it wouldn't work with... Public Address. Can anybody confirm?)
-
3410,
I had a play with an iPad in a shop yesterday. A bit small, if you ask me.
-
I'm not sure it's for me and there are other ways I could/should be spending my money but this is cool. Squeeze with their keyboard player playing a piano app on an Ipad. Great song too.
-
Flipboard looks lovely - if you have an iPad
-
I had a play with an iPad in a shop yesterday. A bit small, if you ask me.
Compared to what? may I ask.
;-) -
3410,
Compared to what? may I ask.
What are you implying, sir?
Actually, don't answer that. ;)
But seriously, I think I'd prefer about a 12" screen over the current 9.7", and my eyesight is fairly okay. Mind you, I'm unused to phones, so... take it with a grain of salt.
-
I guess they're balancing screen size against weight and battery life.
-
Size vs. endurance, sure. We've all been there.
Coat, etc.
-
It won't fit in my coat. The iPad I mean.
Gawd, we're on a slope now...
-
I don't want to see the whole content (which is why I don't read full RSS content on Google reader), just the title and beginning and maybe a picture so I can decide whether to click through.
Oops, sorry. Yes it basically the same level of detail as Facebook gives. Obviously I don't see that sort of linking much on Facebook.
Based on that picture, that's what Tweetdeck looks like, which is to say ghastly :-)
If the Tweetdeck you're talking about looks like this: http://www.tweetdeck.com/beta/ then yes it is ghastly and no Flipboard doesn't look like that!
SteveH, it seems to reformat the content inside itself. But that's based on RSS, yes? So for instance it wouldn't work with... Public Address. Can anybody confirm?
I'm not sure if it's based on RSS or not. There are a limited number of sources - I can't see any way to add an specific RSS feed directly (that's an obvious future feature though). So no, it wouldn't work with Public Address.
-
If the Tweetdeck you're talking about looks like this: http://www.tweetdeck.com/beta/ then yes it is ghastly and no Flipboard doesn't look like that!
The entry point is that tiled page I see in the clip? That's exactly like Tweetdeck. Flipbook appears to do many more things besides, obviously, and it will be a matter of taste. For instance personally I like the automatic switch from portrait to landscape, but not as much as I dislike the turn-page transitions.
I'm not sure if it's based on RSS or not. There are a limited number of sources - I can't see any way to add an specific RSS feed directly (that's an obvious future feature though). So no, it wouldn't work with Public Address.
The sense of my question was: how does Flipbook reformat the shared content, giving it a common look and feel, if the content hasn't been syndicated to RSS? I know Russell wants people to view Public Address at this URL and with all the ancillary information - including ads. It's a legitimate wish, even though I don't run ads I don't fully syndicate my blog either. I'd be interested to know if Flipbook gets around that.
-
The entry point is that tiled page I see in the clip? That's exactly like Tweetdeck.
You mean the page that looks like this: http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/flipboard-ipad-app.jpg ? That's the main menu. An example of the twitter feed is http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/flipboardnpr.jpg Neither of them look much like that screenshots from that Tweetdeck page - is that page not representative of Tweetdeck?
how does Flipbook reformat the shared content, giving it a common look and feel, if the content hasn't been syndicated to RSS?
No idea. I believe it's done on Flipboard's servers. Whether they are reformatting RSS feeds or getting the content via some other mechanism I don't know.
-
Neither of them look much like that screenshots from that Tweetdeck page - is that page not representative of Tweetdeck?
It seems essentially the same to me - a tiled aggregate of the entries of various social networks. Note though how it differs from Facebook - which is a vertically structured ever-updating feed in which each entry is a potential threaded discussion, emphasising not only the shared content, but the social value-added. I really do like that about Facebook, and find it much more of a native idiom to the Web than the remediation of the book or magazine form, let alone with silly animations of the pages actually turning.
No idea. I believe it's done on Flipboard's servers. Whether they are reformatting RSS feeds or getting the content via some other mechanism I don't know.
If they are acquiring content and republishing content then it would pose very pressing copyright questions - that's why I imagine it must be done via RSS, which is an opt-in affair.
-
It seems essentially the same to me - a tiled aggregate of the entries of various social networks.
Tweetdeck shows you peoples' tweets in more or less the same way that the Twitter webpage does only formatted differently. Flipboard shows you the content that is being linked to in the tweets - the images or stories, not just the links. That is significantly different, isn't it?
Note though how it differs from Facebook - which is a vertically structured ever-updating feed in which each entry is a potential threaded discussion, emphasising not only the shared content, but the social value-added.
You get the comments if you click on a Facebook story. For Facebook it really only provides a different layout (though it does show more of photo galleries which is nice). For Twitter you get a list of who has retweeted an item - it doesn't attempt to add threading to tweets.
If they are acquiring content and republishing content then it would pose very pressing copyright questions - that's why I imagine it must be done via RSS, which is an opt-in affair.
Or perhaps they have permission?
-
But how could it get permission on all the things that are shared, in real time? That functionality seems to be implied in the videoclip.
-
It seems essentially the same to me - a tiled aggregate of the entries of various social networks. Note though how it differs from Facebook - which is a vertically structured ever-updating feed in which each entry is a potential threaded discussion, emphasising not only the shared content, but the social value-added. I really do like that about Facebook, and find it much more of a native idiom to the Web than the remediation of the book or magazine form, let alone with silly animations of the pages actually turning.
But why is that "silly", rather than a means of moving through content that suits a multi-touch interface? There are various animations, zooms, etc, in point-and-click desktop UIs that we use without thinking. Multi-touch is full of more or less explicit page-turning mechanisms. It's not "silly", just different.
I wouldn't see Flipboard as a replacement for the original Facebook or Twitter apps so much as a more attractive means of browsing the content my friends deliver through either. I'm intrigued by it and interested in how it's done.
And I do dislike having to use the conventional Facebook interface. It's fugly.
-
It's not "silly", just different.
It's not different, it's silly. You can have that functionality without the image of the Web page flipping as if it was a book or magazine page. It ain't how the Web works. It's a static, conceptually limited yuppie aesthetic.
And I do dislike having to use the conventional Facebook interface. It's fugly.
That it may be. But it tells me at a glance who posted what and how many people liked it and how many people commented on it and what the last piece of the conversation was, without my having to do any further clicking or turning of pages or jumping about. It's brilliantly usable. And - to repeat myself - geared towards the social value added of participating in those conversations. It seems to me at the glance of that clip that Flipbook is much more geared towards access to the links than adding to the discussions that they generate.
-
But it tells me at a glance who posted what and how many people liked it and how many people commented on it and what the last piece of the conversation was.... geared towards the social value added of participating in those conversations.
Thank goodness someone other than me likes Facebook better than Twitter, and can articulate why. I felt very Luddite-y, and now I feel justified (and ancient).
ETA: Fuck it, why not?
-
"and ancient"
Nothing ancient about it. Repeat after me. "The Web: it's a scroll, not a book." (Which by the way the makers of Twitter understand perfectly well.)
-
I literally cannot think the word 'justified' without saying 'and ancient' after it. This is what the 1990s did to me. :)
-
Ah, yes, I see that now :-)
-
It's not different, it's silly. You can have that functionality without the image of the Web page flipping as if it was a book or magazine page. It ain't how the Web works. It's a static, conceptually limited yuppie aesthetic.
It's not a web page. It's an iPad app with a multi-touch interface. The page-turning metaphor is very common in these apps because it's an intuitive way of browsing in that setting. The Maps app, for example, has a corner "peeling up" at the bottom right of maps because it's a visual cue to a user option (in that case, options to toggle between different map formats).
Again, similar metaphors are part of mouse-driven UIs, but you don't notice them because you're used to them and it feels natural to you. When you drag and drop a file, you're not physically moving its bits, you're changing a little bit of directory information associated with the file. But it feels right to drag the picture representing the file from one little picture of a folder to another, or into the Trash, or on to the application you want to use to open it.
You don't like the page metaphor in this case because you haven't used it and you've determined that the whole business is A Thoroughly Bad Thing anyway.
If you don't like how Flipboard works, you can simply use the Facebook website, or use another app that employs different metaphors. But you're not going to have much of an iPad experience if you refuse to swipe a page. Because that would be silly.
-
I feel even more justified and ancient, having recently decided that these newfangled pens are just unreliable, and reverted to pencils.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.