The Digital News

The huge thread on whether or not to distribute Stunt News electronically seems to be missing two points.

1) Has anyone ever tried to use a CD digital archive of a published magazine? I bought the AMA archive of Model Aviation so I could clear out some space on my shelves. It is an archive, and only an archive. It is typical of several of these that I have access to. If you want to look for a specific article the seach functions suck. Unless you know the exact title you are looking for, finding it via a search is very chancy. It's main use is to answer questions like, "what was the span of Ted Futz's Super Galooblewhopper that was in the May '88 issue". It is nearly impossible to browse through an issue like you might do with a paper copy, even if you have a 24 in. monitor. The printed page has bee carefully evolved over many years to work well with the human brain. The digital magazine is just beginning to learn the same things.

The issue of hardcopy cost was addressed. Putting a digital copy onto paper to browse while in the john is prohibitively expensive in time and money.

2) Digital format radically changes the way we view the subject matter. Computer screens are large, busy, and hard to focus on. Formats, layout, and accoutrements like pop-up windows, scrolling banners, overlays, tabs, and all the other bric-a-brac you see on webpages all make it hard to understand what the message is. If I try very hard, I can sort of follow a scrolling computer screen. It is nowhere near as easy to do as it is to flip between pages of a magazine. Just one little example: I can look at a spread of 20 pictures on two pages and quickly spot the ones with people or planes I want to take a closer look at. That simply cannot be done with an image on a computer screen. It is very difficult to flip through 20 images and easily "bookmark" the ones you want to take a closer look at, look back-and-forth between them, and show them to others to discuss.

If our current crop of kids actually does learn to "see" a scrolling screen they may do better, but who knows what the change will do to other perceptions. Some things are hard-wired into the brain by birth and early training. Once the brain learns one way of doing things, it often literally cannot learn a new one. As Marshall Macluhan posited, "the medium is the message". A computerized Stunt News will have to have a different focus and different content.

hasta la vista

>The huge thread on whether or not to distribute Stunt News
>electronically seems to be missing two points.
>
>1) Has anyone ever tried to use a CD digital archive of a
>published magazine? I bought the AMA archive of Model
>Aviation so I could clear out some space on my shelves. It
>is an archive, and only an archive. It is typical of
>several of these that I have access to. If you want to look
>for a specific article the seach functions suck. Unless you
>know the exact title you are looking for, finding it via a
>search is very chancy. It's main use is to answer questions
>like, "what was the span of Ted Futz's Super
>Galooblewhopper that was in the May '88 issue". It is
>nearly impossible to browse through an issue like you might
>do with a paper copy, even if you have a 24 in. monitor.
>The printed page has bee carefully evolved over many years
>to work well with the human brain. The digital magazine is
>just beginning to learn the same things.
>
>The issue of hardcopy cost was addressed. Putting a digital
>copy onto paper to browse while in the john is prohibitively
>expensive in time and money.
>
>2) Digital format radically changes the way we view the
>subject matter. Computer screens are large, busy, and hard
>to focus on. Formats, layout, and accoutrements like pop-up
>windows, scrolling banners, overlays, tabs, and all the
>other bric-a-brac you see on webpages all make it hard to
>understand what the message is. If I try very hard, I can
>sort of follow a scrolling computer screen. It is nowhere
>near as easy to do as it is to flip between pages of a
>magazine. Just one little example: I can look at a spread of
>20 pictures on two pages and quickly spot the ones with
>people or planes I want to take a closer look at. That
>simply cannot be done with an image on a computer screen.
>It is very difficult to flip through 20 images and easily
>"bookmark" the ones you want to take a closer look at, look
>back-and-forth between them, and show them to others to
>discuss.
>
>If our current crop of kids actually does learn to "see" a
>scrolling screen they may do better, but who knows what the
>change will do to other perceptions. Some things are
>hard-wired into the brain by birth and early training. Once
>the brain learns one way of doing things, it often literally
>cannot learn a new one. As Marshall Macluhan posited, "the
>medium is the message". A computerized Stunt News will have
>to have a different focus and different content.
>
>
>hasta la vista

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Thank You Phil!: Some (like you),get it.Some find the view from inside the navel too narrowly restricted.

Us that live with computers all day do Get It and fully understand the advantages and limitations of Digital Media. What I don't get is why anyone would spend so much effort knocking an idea that wouldn't effect them at all if they chose to continue to receive the hard copy.

I have dropped subscriptions to a couple of hard copy magazines which reformatted their pages to look more like websites.

>Us that live with computers all day do Get It and
>fully understand the advantages and limitations of Digital
>Media. What I don't get is why anyone would spend so much
>effort knocking an idea that wouldn't effect them at all if
>they chose to continue to receive the hard copy.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

"Every time I think I'm out,they pull me back in again!"

Bob,no need to shout,I get your point.I still don't think you get mine.I think choice is a wonderful thing.I also know that after a period of time,we'll no longer have a choice.No matter how the content is produced,it will need "massaging" to adapt it to either medium.This is redundant,costly,and labor intensive as opposed to preparation for a single medium,whichever it may be,and no matter what you may say to the contrary, it's cheaper to let the members print it than it isfor PAMPA to print,bind and mail it. I,personally do not believe that a web version of any printed medium is of the same quality as the printed word,however,that is a secondary consideration.My main concern is that it will affect me.I,and those others of us who feel as I do,will,eventually have no choice.In the grand old tradition of The American Way,cheaper will win out over better every time.Oh,Yes,I know it'll never happen that way,and Neville Chamberlain said "peace in our time".

LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-04 AT 09:12 PM (CDT)
 
Hi Ron,

I think we understand what you're saying quite well. You feel, that if we had the choice of having a publication in digital form as well as in printed form, that very shortly the the printed form would disappear because production and mailing costs for the analog magazine are so much higher than publishing and delivering the same product in digital form blah, blah, blah.

I, for one, can understand why you feel the the way you do but am personally swayed by the substantial amount of evidence to the contrary.

In the end, we just don't agree with you on this one.

I wholeheartedly agree with Ron!! IT WILL AFFECTAND CONCERN US WHO WANT TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT QUALITY OF HARD COPY!!!! Yes I'm yelling!!

Bigiron (the squeeky wheel gets the grease)

OK, I'll wade in here...

1'st - I've spent my fair share of time with most Adobe products, Corel and (Ventura Publisher in the old days). Been in the business from the beginning. I've spent more time staring at screens than most people spend reading in a lifetime.

2'nd - when our local TBLF club newsletter is emailed to me, the first thing I do is PRINT IT, then read it!

3'rd - In a newsletter like Stunt News, I think a lot of us tend to read it cover to cover, more than once, waiting for the next issue to roll in.

4'th - Computer screens are going the wrong direction for reading text. Wide screen is all the rage. Wrong! Give me back my Radius Pivot for full screen page views! Also, LCD's have a super high native resolution. A typical 17" LCD's native mode is 1280X1024. Text is tiny, and you can fit a full screen. But who can read it? So you say turn on screen font scaling, right? OK, the font's get bigger, but you can't see the whole page, and the fonts don't look as good because they are now scaled up!

5th - All used Stunt News should be considered biological hazardous waste, from the sound of where most people on this board say they read them.!

And finally, back to being somewhat serious... I do see the temptation to do this, but the average age of the PAMPA membership would seem prohibitive to doing this without still giving the choice of printed copy until the GENX'ers are at least the age of the current Boomers.

I would probably sign up for a CD mailer, opposed to an emailed newsletter, along with an annual DVD that would encompass the previous year all on one DVD. I do like the idea of having a full text searchable digital archive at my fingertips.

Eric V.

Shout? I didn't shout, THIS IS SHOUTING I just emphasized a couple of words Yep I think this is one that only time will resolve.

BTW love your warbirds, wished I had the time and persistence.. you should be proud of your accomplishments.