Apparently, the designers at the Croatian design firm Bruketa & Zinić feel the same way. The report that they designed for the food company Podravka, (titled Well Done) really breaks the mold – it actually has to be baked to be read! Read all about it here. (thanks to Jason Santa Maria’s blog for the heads up).

The iPod touch brings WiFi capability to iPods for the first time. As a result, it incorporates mobile Safari, a nifty version of the Mac web browser, designed especially for the mobile experience. When it was first introduced with the iPhone, Apple hailed mobile Safari as “the most advanced web browser ever on a portable device.” It wasn’t just hype. Mobile Safari (in conjunction with a high resolution screen), lived up to its billing. Websites look very much like they do with a desktop browser. There are exceptions, of course (lack of Flash support being the most glaring), but all in all, mobile Safari puts the web in your hand.

Because of this, some observers were a bit confused when some websites released iPhone-optimized sites soon after the device’s launch. Some of this reaction can be seen here and here. Why would a iPhone-optimized version of a website be needed, if mobile Safari was so darn good at bringing users “the real web?”

This development should not be that surprising. Despite how good a browser it is, mobile Safari is still a web browser for a mobile device. Because of this, the experience will never be the same as it is on the desktop. And nor should it be. The mobile experience has its own set of considerations and challenges. The mobile web experience means small screens, less time to dally, and (often-times) slower connection speeds. Even a great browser can not compensate for these factors.

Does this mean that developers will have to offer iPhone/iPod touch optimized versions of their web sites? Well, sort of. Many sites currently offer mobile versions of their content. Mobile web design is gaining more and more attention from the web development community. There are many reasons to offer a mobile version of your web site. Perhaps your site offers special appeal or use for mobile users. Perhaps, your site is highly bandwidth intensive and requires a more streamlined version that won’t choke mobile browsers. Or perhaps your site incorporates a layout that is too dense for the smaller screens of a mobile device. These are all legitimate reasons to explore adding a mobile version of your site.

But what gets developers knickers in a bunch is the possibility of creating versions of sites designed solely for mobile Safari. To some, this is a move backwards to the days when sites were designed solely for one type of browser. It easy to see the root of these concerns, but they ignore the fact that Apple sees the web as an application environment for the iPhone (as well as the forthcoming iPod touch). The only (authorized) way for third-party developers to put their wares on the iPhone is to develop them as web applications to be run through mobile Safari. As a result, most of the best iPhone-optimized web sites aren’t really web sites, per se. It would be more accurate to label them web applications designed specifically for the device.

Some may see this as a matter of semantics, but I think it really helps frame how web developers should view the iPhone and iPod touch. I would agree that creating a version of a site specifically optimized for the iPhone seems to be a bit overkill, especially if the intent is to simply make a better mobile web experience for visitors. If that is the true intent, your resources would be better served by developing a mobile version of your site that is designed with all mobile devices in mind. It will still work great on mobile Safari and you wouldn’t be excluding the large number of the non-Apple mobile community. Mobile Safari users who want a more robust, desktop-like experience, can still choose to experience the “full” version of the site, if they so choose. On the other hand, if you want to offer an experience that utilizes the unique qualities of the iPhone or iPod touch (the higher resolution screen, the touch screen technology, etc), develop a web application that takes advantages of those qualities. These web applications shouldn’t be a stripped down version of the full site. Rather, they should be robust applications that offer visitors a unique experience that really takes advantage of what these devices can do. We already seeing some really cool stuff and there will only be more as more people get ahold of mobile Safari.

These are interesting times. Only time will tell the true impact of the iPhone, iPod touch and mobile Safari. Until then, it will fun to see how it all shakes out.

Since then I have sought out other old magazines and marveled at how good they looked. It easy to forgot the power and beauty an illustration can have when used properly on a magazine cover. Unfortunately, it is so easy to forget because it is done so infrequently now. Aside from The New Yorker (which features a snazzy illustration by Eric Drooker on this week’s cover, there are few high-profile magazines that consistently have covers that exclusively use illustrations on their covers.

Now I don’t want to turn this into a illustration versus photography debate. I love good photography just as much as I love good illustration. I think the problem is more of one with art direction. Today, art directors must account for much more information that needs to be communicated. The result is covers jam-packed with coverlines teasing the content found within. This comes in direct contrast with what was done in the past (as seen in this then and now comparison.)

All things are cyclical and I for one hope that the pendulum swings back in favor of aesthetics over coverlines. There are a lot of talented illustrators and photographers out there. Let’s turn them loose and let them produce something truly striking.