As to why the New Yorker went with a limited feature set, I think it might have something to do with Keep It Simple (Stupid). There’s a lot of value in that, especially with new technology.

Thad – “that’s why god gave us both inexpensive laser printers and the opportunity to subscribe to the publications we enjoy”

yep!

Although I do think there’s value to having the option to print a New Yorker article in the way it was laid out on the actual magazine page. Sadly, what looks good on a web page rarely looks as impressive on an 8×10 piece of printer paper.

At first I was 100% against them — just ever-so-slightly easier to navigate that a bulky PDF file — not much of a benefit.

And then I heard about readers of serious journals and business publications, particularly overseas, for whom it was a great advantage to get access to the periodical rather than waiting a month or more (in some cases) for it to appear in the mail. And they wanted to see it exactly as the print version would appear, for citations, etc. I could begin to see a similar advantage even for a consumer magazine like The New Yorker, inasmuch as some of its content is timely.

Yet at the same time I’m perfectly happy with the present online design of The New Yorker and while a longer thoughtful piece is not well-suited to reading on the screen, I believe that’s why god gave us both inexpensive laser printers and the opportunity to subscribe to the publications we enjoy.

Good review on the digital edition of the New Yorker… I work for a different digital magazine service company, so feel free to take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

One of the things we’ve learned in the past few years is that the digital magazine reader is different than the website reader… You’re right in that website readers want info. quick and simply. From the more than one million digital magazine readers we get each month, we’ve learned they’re looking for a brand experience. They tend to stay inside the digital magazine much longer and stay for many more pages than those inside the websites of our clients. Not because it’s a better experience, but because it’s how that particular group wants to interact with the content.

For publishers – this same format publishing allows them to count digital subscribers the same as their print. While it’s a very valid argument that circulation metrics are suspect, nevertheless they are a reality in today’s world and digital magazines help meet this requirement while saving publishers money.

RE: Navigation. One of the things we’ve found is that if you give readers lots of nav. choices, they’ll often find one that works for them and when they do, they think your nav. is great. The solution the New Yorker chose has fewer options, so I’d expect fewer readers to like it.

In general, I was surprised that the New Yorker picked this particular solution. The leading companies today index content for search engines (even if the display’s in Flash), offer RSS feeds so readers don’t miss new issues and deliver text-based experiences for readers using mobile devices, Kindles, etc…. so that the reader can self-select – to an extent – how they wish to consume the content. It’s a shame the New Yorker didn’t choose a product that does any of that.