LAB magazine

January 22, 2007 6:04 AM

Magazine junkiesNew magazine in beta, looks promising. Nice interface lets you preview the entire issue online. Contains interviews with some of my favorite online personalities. I hope it flies!
posted by sparky (17 comments total)

Interesting, not the first design-focused magazine with such an interface. I don't see why you'd want to have pages in a non print medium though. A design mag should understand the difference. It's a nice gimmick for a preview; good thing they don't require you to read the entire magazine that way.
posted by mkb at 6:23 AM on January 22, 2007

Crappy interface. Luckily there's a PDF version, I guess.
posted by signal at 7:36 AM on January 22, 2007

This isn't the first time this has been done. It's a pretty "done that" thing. But where is the business plan? I have dreamt of starting journals and magazines, but there's no money in it unless you have money to start out with.
posted by parmanparman at 8:04 AM on January 22, 2007

Good brief rant "Death to User-Generated Content
posted by stbalbach at 8:25 AM on January 22, 2007

Renders badly in Safari.
posted by jpburns at 8:48 AM on January 22, 2007

The site was too slow for me to check it out. Three articles by Derek Powazek in one issue?
posted by xammerboy at 9:53 AM on January 22, 2007

Wow. LAB on MetaFilter... it's humbling. The LOVE— I can feel it in the air. It's good to get so much thoughtful feedback. Even if it's mostly from the peanut gallery. *ducks peanut missile*

A few quick replies:
"Crappy interface. Luckily there's a PDF version, I guess."
And a print version, too! So many choices.

"It's a pretty 'done that' thing."
I guess magazines in general are a pretty "done that" thing.

"...there's no money in it unless you have money to start out with."
Very true! And I know this might be shocking, but— LAB wasn't really intended to make money. *gasp* In fact, it's kinda all about people doing stuff because they really love doing it, whether it makes money or not. Even without a business plan! Silly, huh?

"Renders badly in Safari."
Which version are you using? Seems to work fine in version 2.0.4. But I'll check into it.

"The site was too slow for me to check it out."
One nifty thing— you can turn off the Flash page-flipper, and navigate the articles much faster.

"Three articles by Derek Powazek in one issue?"
Well, I guess THAT automatically disqualifies it from having any street cred. And, actually, it's one interview with Derek Powazek, followed by two of his blog posts which were relevant to what was discussed in the interview. But, I know— it breaks all the rules of publishing, don't it?

Again, thanks for all the feedback on the website. I'd love to hear more feedback on the actual content.

Excessively Long-winded-ly Yours,

/Joseph
(the idea-guy behind LAB who spent the last 3 months pulling it together)

PS— for those interested in that passé archaic activity of reading & then thinking about what you're reading... if I may be so bold as to suggest the following articles, which are some of my personal favorites:
Get Your Interview On | interview with David Rees
Dear Sir: Ray Fenwick Is a Genius | interview with, well, Ray Fenwick
We Are the Media | interview with Derek Powazek
posted by josephrobertson at 1:11 PM on January 22, 2007

But, I know— it breaks all the rules of publishing, don't it?

No, just all the rules of mixtapes.

I'm glad you're not listening to the haters, and since I'm about to embark on my own small-run periodical journey, i wish you best of luck with yours!
posted by kowalski at 1:35 PM on January 22, 2007

Well, our plan to lure in new members by pointing and laughing at their sites worked. Another $5 in the bank!
posted by signal at 1:51 PM on January 22, 2007

Wow--how'd you fund this? I seem to have had the exact same idea.
posted by shownomercy at 2:43 PM on January 22, 2007

PS— for those interested in that passé archaic activity of reading & then thinking about what you're reading... if I may be so bold as to suggest the following articles, which are some of my personal favorites:

Oooh. Snarkiness. That's a fresh concept.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 2:47 PM on January 22, 2007

kowalski—
Good point. The Rules of Mixtapes are not to be trifled with. And thanks— I'll need all the luck I can get. What's your periodical going to be called?

shownomercy—
Funding came in the form of me selling my best camera lens on ebay, and pouring that back into LAB. Also: micro-loans by two close friends. A pretty humble start. You've got me curious... what was your idea?

ereshkigal45—
Touché. Responding to snarkiness with more snarkiness is pretty pointless. And pointing out how useless it is to respond to snarkiness with even more snarkiness is... well, pretty funny, actually. My apologies for any inappropriate snark, though.
posted by josephrobertson at 6:37 PM on January 22, 2007

And pointing out how useless it is to respond to snarkiness with even more snarkiness is... well, pretty funny, actually.

Actually, not.

But hey, I like magazines, so I'll take a look anyway. Good luck with it!
posted by robcorr at 8:10 PM on January 22, 2007

Recursiveness makes me brain hurt.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 9:47 PM on January 22, 2007

Okay, not the most intelligent of responses but it looks very pretty.
posted by liquorice at 10:55 PM on January 22, 2007

It looks awfully nice, but it's straining my pirated wireless to the breaking point. Sadness!

Best of luck, josephrobertson!
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:25 PM on January 22, 2007

Grapefruitmoon—
Sorry to hear it. Maybe try turning the flash pageflipper off: there's a little "Page flipper: on | off" toggle right below the page previewer. Hope that helps.

I think we're gonna look into a little more bandwidth-sensitive 'lite' version of the site relatively soon. This whole thing is still very much a learning experiment. And we've got a lot to learn.

ereshkigal45—
I learned a new word today. Thanks.
posted by josephrobertson at 10:28 AM on January 23, 2007