Skip to main content

The Guardian ipad edition

I've been waiting for the Guardian's ipad edition for some time. It has been pretty rigorously pre-tested because they know it had to be good enough to entice people to spend £10 a month on it rather than the minimal sum the iphone/ipad version costs, or spending nothing at all on the standard web site.

If you have an ipad 1 you first need to download Apple's latest operating system iOS5. This took about three hours from the itunes store with a slowish broadband connection. Then it took a little while for the Guardian download and a surprisingly long time (at least 10 minutes) for the Saturday edition of the ipad Guardian to download. I hope it was only this long because it was the first download, but we shall see. Updates on the iphone version are almost instantaneous. The paper is accessed from the ipad's home screen via an icon called "newstand", within which you could place other news sources.

So, I have it in front of me. From the front page, rich in colour and pictures, you can navigate either by a sliding tool bar to all sections of the paper or from the window panes to some of the sections: national, international, financial, in pictures, editorials, money and family and comment.  You can also access older editions of the paper from the "issues" button. The front page also features a large banner headline and picture. Today it's the Liam Fox story.

Once you've tapped a window to access another section, tapping a story brings up the article in full, in quite large Guardian-style font. Alternatively you can flick to one side to get the next page of the paper, so navigation can be by tap or swipe. Photography is always very prominent, taking advantage of the ipad's 9 inch screen. I'm a little surprised, however, than you cannot enlarge text with the two finger outward swipe, but the text is quite large, so I guess this won't be an issue. You cannot swipe from a specific written piece, you have to return to the main section page for this.

Some users have bemoaned the lack of comments after articles. I find this both retro and refreshing - it's amazing how many right-wing crazies seem to read Guardian articles online.

A dip into the sport section reveals a total of 34 ipad pages. The main sport page includes an annoying link to Channel 4's TV schedules and an invitation to dowload the 4oD app, but the this is because the Guardian ipad edition is sponsored by Channel 4. In a bar alongside each article there are links to articles on the Guardian's standard website which I find slightly curious. It's almost like an invitation not to subscribe to the ipad edition, but this may be one way of lightening the ipad edition to make download quicker. Within the sports pages there are also links in the sidebar to other sports articles on the app. There is plenty of coverage, including racing, rugby, football and comprehensive results.

It all works smoothly, looks very good with all the high quality photography and it is a world away from the functional iphone app. On the other hand, the iphone app does more audio and video, whereas this app is very much a digital newspaper, with the feel of a classy tabloid. The "in pictures" section is attractive; Saturdays' edition has 13 interesting photos.

So, the £10 question is: after the trial 70-odd editions have been viewed, do you fork out the subscription? I shall wait and see. £10 is still very good value when compared with the cost of the print version. Tablet newspapers are the future, I have no doubt, and if we want the Guardian to survive we shall have to pay for it, so, rather akin to the way we help keep our milkman in employment, I might be tempted to part with the cost of three or four pints for a good cause. This app looks great, is easy to use and really suits the ipad. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on those download times.

Postscript: downloads for Monday and Tuesday were slow, taking about 10 minutes. That's a pain.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,