Hi Bill et al,
I also don't like the typical electronic version of most magazines.
Usually all the publisher does is create an electronic copy of the physical
version, and then force you to try to read it on a screen. Since the
content wasn't designed with a screen in mind, it's not a very pleasant
experience. I get QST and tried their electronic version but found it
unusable. Mostly I've found that I have to print out such magazines to
get them on paper, and my printer is nowhere near as good as theirs.
However, that's why I pointed specifically to that model railroading
magazine. It is one of the few I've encountered that is designed for
electronic consumption. So, for example, in some kind of "construction"
article, in addition to the text, you'll be able to view short videos and
*see* how to do the various steps. That's a huge benefit. Also,
articles can be as long as needed - no shortages of pages in the electronic
world. And, my favorite peeve is gone - never a "continued on page xx"!
There's lots of such differences from the paper world. It's hard to
imagine how they would produce a paper version of the magazine - it would
be just as painful to read on paper as the paper ones are to read on a
screen.
Even if you're not interested in model railroading, you might take a look
at http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com. Download an issue and see how such
a magazine works. It's also interesting that the magazine is totally free
- apparently the advertising is enough to support it.
I'd love to see a similar electronic amateur radio magazine. But I'll
continue getting paper versions from publishers who haven't figured out the
difference yet.
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Bill Parry <bparry@rgv.rr.com> wrote:
> I have been reading these e-mails with interest. I know that I am old but I
> don't like the electronic version of magazines. I have several
> subscriptions
> to magazines and have simply dropped the subscription rather than be
> required to accept electronic versions...which is what I will do if CQ goes
> that route. I have been a subscriber to CQ for many years and am a life
> member of ARRL/QST. I just assumed that all these price increase over the
> years have been to pay for the increased in cost of producing the magazine.
>
> I would be willing to pay more for the paper copy if necessary unless the
> price is ridiculous.
>
> I don't find the internet/e-mail to be dependable enough to pay bills, get
> electronic updates etc. A couple of weeks ago my internet was down for
> about
> 10 days. It is hard to read an electronic copy if the internet is down.
>
> Bill W5VX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> PA5MW, Mark
> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 5:08 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [PPRAANet] CQ Magazine
>
> **An aside: Slowly, marketplace realities are beginning to penetrate the
> publishing industry, including advertisers, as experience replaces hype.
> Even young people prefer print over digital for certain types of reading.
> My
> experience with two college student sons validates this.**
>
>
> Very well put!
> We may need to ask the crowd here to share their long-term experiences, new
> developments, etc... by feeding CQ with a written article.
> There have been very good ones these last two years.
>
> 73 PA5MW, MArk van Wijk
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|