I love magazines. I take them with me wherever I go. In fact, I love my magazines so much I hauled my entire collections of New Yorkers and Harper’s along with me when I moved across the country as a student. The thought of throwing them away was simply too much to bear. Sadly, I eventually had to part with my treasured collections for the simple matter of space.
I guess old habits die hard because I am now currently collecting Runner’s World, a magazine I’ve been reading since 2004. In fact, it was a single issue of Runner’s World that got me started running. A subscription kept me going strong.
One of the things I love about the magazine is the range of content - from newbie to ultramarathoner. I’ll read stuff that doesn’t apply to me at all simply because it’s well written (good editorial choices). I’ll stay up into the wee hours when my subscription arrives. I take it with me wherever I go. For example, as much as I love the online version, I can’t take the computer into the tub for my post run ice bath. And that magazine is only way I can get through an ice bath.
I’m also not willing to get butter and flour on my keyboard in order to access a favourite RW recipe. My copies of the mag are grease stained, crinkly from ice baths, dog-eared and torn from morning commutes and doodled in marginalia. These are forms of participation but very different than what I do online, which is where I spend the majority of my days and nights.
Online and print participation: it isn’t a versus
When it comes to the magazine reader-user experience, one form of participation (e.g., tactile) isn’t better than another (e.g., digital). They’re different, which is why I think print magazines will survive well into the future.
For example, I have an entirely different relationship with the online version of RW. The online version allows forms of participation that I want and need from my internet experience - but cannot engage on the static printed page. All that marginalia, the dialogue I wish to have with the text, is better suited to an environment that engages real time conversation.
I can also bookmark or send my favourite recipe to a friend thanks to; A) the fact that they’ve published the recipe online, and B) thanks to the bookmarking app (on the upper corner of all their pages - the same one I use below). Thanks to permalinks, I can also share it with you. Go on, click on it. Better yet, bookmark it. Toasted quinoa - mmmmm!
One thing Runner’s World has done really well is to make itself web2.0 friendly - quickly. They stepped up to the starting line because they care about the user and they provide ample opportunities to participate with content. This isn’t a top-down monologue but a dialogue. It’s an inviting experience that makes me feel cared about as a reader-user. It also makes me feel a part of a community I cannot access from the printed page.
Social and participatory media elements speak to basic human needs - like trust, cooperation and belonging. These are not merely feel-good concepts but the original philosophies that informed virtual community and every other model behind all the tech. Web2.0 isn’t simply about widgets, increased bandwidth and greater programming capabilities but a number of social philosophies. Design and tech that is divorced from the meaningful context that informs their use is, well, useless.
Speaking to basic human needs by putting the user experience FIRST is the essence of survival and success for magazines making the transition to an authentic web2.0 model. It’s also the difference between magazines that drift off course and those that sprint into the future.
0 Responses to “Web2.0 magazines: Runner’s World”