The Washington Post for iPad: Best e-version ever! Review

Add reviewThe Washington Post for iPad: Best e-version ever! Good reviewsThe Washington Post for iPad: Best e-version ever! Bad reviewsThe Washington Post for iPad: Best e-version ever! Review RSS feed
The Washington Post for iPad has 1101 reviews. Enter your email below and we'll notify you when new reviews are added, so you can comment, share or remove the reviews. This is great for monitoring your apps or the competition's apps
Best e-version ever!
The print-replica version of this paper is exactly what I was hoping for in an online newspaper. Still feels like a real paper but with just the right amount of interactivity.
DvSP2 on Apr 22, 2013 for The Washington Post for iPad
share · comment
What A Shame
The Washington Post had a very user-friendly app that was comprehensive, easy to navigate and visually pleasing. This app takes major steps back in all categories. Functionally, the app is difficult to navigate. Pages stick when trying to move from one section to the next, and page loads are infuriatingly slow when they work at all. From a layout perspective, there is way too much white space (the old app was perfect in this respect), and font size selection is terrible. The app does not remember the font setting from article to article, and when selecting a larger size, it goes from very small to very large, then needs to be scaled back down. I have never seen an app with this poor an execution. I love the Washington Post, having read it every day when I was a resident of the DC area. I was so happy when the original app came out, as it allowed this New Yorker to re-connect with the Post's world-class journalism with a downright enjoyable iPad experience. I rarely open the app these days as it is so frustrating. My only hope is that the NY Times app was poor when first introduced, but is now one of the best, which I read daily. I hope that the app team at WP retracts the current app, returning the old one until the current version is brought up to snuff. Newsstand is a great feature, but if people won't read the paper because the app is so deficient, it looses it's value. By the way, I believe in supporting superior journalism with a paid subscription model. I would take a digital subscription, but the app needs to be excellent.
Wash Post Fan on Apr 21, 2013 for The Washington Post for iPad
share · comment
Great new version with some frequent bugs
The latest version of my metro area's main paper app is a big leap forward because of its complete Print Edition feature on iPad. Now the whole daily or Sunday is right there on the screen, where gestures can zoom the print for the viewer and tapping a story will take you to a non-PE format, also manipulable. No more missing parts of the Post as was the case in former versions of the iPad app. So far, a couple of times a week, tapping the Print Edition button kicks me out of the app altogether, as other reviewers have complained. Several consecutive attempts to get the PE all fail, until the next day's edition is available. To date, no two successive days of fail. Even with bugs, which I'm sure they're working, the app merits at least three stars.
NYTimesFanVA on Apr 19, 2013 for The Washington Post for iPad
share · comment
New Washington Post App buggy, slow
The new Washington Post app that puts the icon into the Apple Newsstand is attractive and feature-filled; if only it would work! About half the time when you press the Print Edition the system bounces you back to the iPad home screen. Other problems include a confusing mixed interface where sometimes you sweep across horizontally to advance and sometimes vertically. It's also easy to touch something you are not interested in and get whisked away to an irrelevant site.
Cheech77 on Apr 17, 2013 for The Washington Post for iPad
share · comment
Blank issues
I really like this version and find it easy to learn to use. But at least once a week when I download the print edition (my favorite!), it ends up blank. Nothing I do will fix this until the next day when I can load it as yesterday's issue. But what's the point in that? For now, I just delete the app and then reinstall. Bingo! I've got my print edition just fine. Works now; but that's not going to be a good solution when I have to start paying for it this summer!
RGaitherNM on Apr 17, 2013 for The Washington Post for iPad
share · comment
Web version just self-destructed
1) they have replaced their "we are a serious news organization" (New York Timesy) look with a sub-USA Today, child-like look that implies a child level of news coverage. To achieve it, they've had to limit the extent of inverted-pyramid, with some articles reduced to nothing but a headline. Since they have followed the national trend of using headlines that entice, rather than inform ("A Bridge to Somewhere" was one recent headline with no accompanying first sentence), this requires people commit to be moved to an article without any knowledge of the subject matter at all. 2) Navigation clues are completely absent. Users have no sense of where they are, where they will go next, or even how they got there. 3) their advertising requires you apply tape, paper, a magazine or book across the bottom of your device. Banner ads, even at the top of the page, are normally ignored. Eye-tracking tests show that the eyes of all but the most experienced users will never even track across them. Banner ads at the bottom of the page would be utterly useless unless a site were to employ a technique long-since abandoned because users detest it as well as anyone who would dare use it. That happens to be the exact technique they have chosen to use. Their designers, apparently aware of the banner ad problem, are overcoming it by using animation. This does, in fact, draw the user's eye upon every transition. Unfortunately, that makes the articles almost impossible to leaf through without placing something like a book or magazine over the bottom of the screen to obscure the banner. The problem is that humans are hard wired to respond to animation in the periphery so we can react to threats such as charging animals. We have no choice but to respond again and again and again. Because readers are powerless to avoid being drawn away from what they're trying to see upon each ad transition, people not only hate the ads, they hate and resent the sites that use them. That's why, in about 1998, everyone stopped using animated ads. (It would be bad enough if you only had your eye drawn the four times for the four transitions of the current ad, but as you leaf through the paper, the ad re-transitions on each and every page, resulting in constant interruptive motion.)
Asktog on Apr 16, 2013 for The Washington Post for iPad
share · comment