A little review of the first three versions to appear.
Covers
Version 1 & Version 2's covers are very similar using the maximum area for the illustration and working the contents around that. Version 2 is a little more interesting with its use of colour and fonts to draw the readers eye to features inside, although I don't like the font used for the magazine title. Version 3's cover is terrible, you have a postage stamp for the illustration and in a sea of blue space that provides no information.
Borders
I don't like the edge border on version 2 and 3 the way it jumps from side to side. That's only worth while if you can do double-sided printing, since most people are unlikely to have a duplex printer or even print out a full copy it is just distracting. Version 1, has a simple red border at the top which I prefer although obviously its going to use up the red ink on my printer if I want to print a page. Also the page number jumps from left to right, I think it would be better at the centre since you don't know how a person is going to print it and information that jumps from left to right when reading on the screen it is a pain.
Content Page
Version 1 has a 'hyperlinked' contents page which is very handy. Something missing from both the other magazines. Version 3's content page is much more interesting, illustrations highlight topic and the reviews section is listed by item, unfortunately this takes up more page space and increases the file size.
Size
Version 3 is 42 pages probably due to its use of fonts and illustrations. Version 2 is supprisingly the shortest at 34 page and version 1 comes in at 38 page right in the middle. Since people are generally only going to print out the sections they need this small difference in number of pages isn't really too much of a problem.
What be of interest to some is the file size. The smallest at just 632 kb is Version 1 a very compact document. Version 3 comes in two flavours a low-res screen version at 1.3 Mb, still resonably compact and a high-res print version at 6.5 Mb its nice to have the choice. Version 2 is the largest (excluding the 3b) at nearly 3 Mb, which can take a while to download if your on a dial-up connection. Still all of them are significantly smaller than the last issue of Asgard which was 7.5 Mb.
Use of Technology
Version 1 is the only one with a clickable content page that takes to straight to the article in question, very handy. Version 2 make up for not hyperlinking its contents page by actually making use of Acrobats bookmarks, something neither of the other documents do. In the reviews section of Version 1 and 2 you can click on a link to take you to the company's website a very good idea. This is a clickable address in verision 1, or the image of the product in version 2 a while this is nice presentation wise it does mean you don't have a record of the web address if you print page out. Version 3 seems to make no use of the features of Acrobat files with no bookmarks or hyperlinks as far as I can see.
It would be nice to see the feature list on the front page hyperlinked in any later versions.
Presentation
Apart from the poor front page version 3 does very well inside it uses a clear easy to read font for the body text but interesting and eye catching headings. Version 2 makes good use of fonts although perhaps not as well as version 3 and unforunately its choice of font for the body text makes it horrible to read on screen. Version 1 uses a very limited selection of fonts which althought clear makes it a little dull and gives it a text-book feel, although at least it is easy on the eye.
The boxed out sections in version 2 and 3 are useful and helping break up the page and provide information clearly via clever use of colour. Version 1 uses box outs rarely and they all have black borders and plain backgrounds making it look a bit amatuer at times.
Conclusions
Version 1's simple style has obviously lead to a smaller file size which is to be desired for any on-line publication. Version 3 although presented nicely on the inside, has a horrible cover and make no use of the features available in an on-line publication. I my opinion Version 2 is probably the best compromise and it also makes the best use of the technology, it still has room for improvement particularly with its body text font and file size.
