right-- because they would have had to use an actual graphic designer with the skills to design and produce a print publication (and many graphic designers under 40 don’t have those types of skills), then the publication just uses a service to put the print issue online. I’ve been interviewing candidates for a mid-level graphic designer/print production position for several weeks now and the resumes/portfolios are not good. Most people are completely under qualified.
2 Likes
This*x 1000. I used to think on-page flippers were cool for about 5 secs and then I realized that they way people interact (and expect to interact) w/ print vs. on-line (and I would argue that PDF is a third variable) are just so diff that they shouldn’t be used interchangeably.
Source: none professionally. I’m uneducated but b*tchy and loud-mouthed about design and UX issues.
3 Likes
it’s just an easy/fast way for print pubs to put their issues online without doing the additional work of having a website that is a live, functioning, interactive version of their publication and the content/culture they want to put out to the public. All publishing companies that produce a print publication need to do both things-- upload their print edition as is and also have a website that is an addition to that and also expands the brand and purpose. Any publication that is web only really needs to focus on user experience, content, design and functionality.
1 Like
And if you use a print layout—this looks like it might have been done in InDesign—why publish it only to an online page flipper?
Welcome to FTC @whoami.
2 Likes
because it requires no additional work other than uploading the cropped pdfs of the individual pages to pressreader (or whichever service their company uses). For smaller companies (than Doordash) it’s an affordable, easy way to put your publication up on a website. It shouldn’t take the place of a robust website, but should be available for viewing and downloading for the people who want that.
2 Likes
When there is a print publication that makes sense, but in this case a web-only publication was composed InDesign-style as facing pages and then published only as a page-flipper (with no download option).
That’s particularly odd given that the publisher’s business is built on web and phone apps.
Thank you!
1 Like
time + money.
designing/coding a website from scratch takes a long time and costs a lot of money. they wouldn’t be able to attain their visual design objectives (no comment on my part about the design style) and turn this thing around quickly. They also wouldn’t be able to use Wordpress or some sort of existing web template (beyond simple styling and uploads) and customize it to fit what they’re trying to do.
If I were to guess, they got this done, threw it up there on the web and if there is enough interest, maybe they will actually build it out correctly… or who knows… maybe their goal is to produce a print publication and this is a test run
3 Likes
Providing a PDF would have cost nothing.
1 Like
Such a great, diplomatic term. 
lol…thx. I would say that a large part of my job is explaining design, design concepts, the value of good design/branding, etc to non-designers and business people. It helps to put things into terms that they can understand.
3 Likes
There are physical copies floating around in LA! But I don’t know how they plan to distribute or sell going forward.
the existence of physical copies explains Robert’s question: why they used indesign and created this product as a print publication first and then just posted in online as a “flip book” web publication reader.
The awful web site makes way more sense if there’s actually a printed magazine.
Too bad there’s no PDF option.
