The Case Against E-readers -- Why Digital Natives Prefer Reading On Paper 261
HughPickens.com writes: Michael Rosenwald writes in the WaPo that textbook makers, bookstore owners and college student surveys all say millennials still strongly prefer reading on paper for pleasure and learning. This bias surprises reading experts, given the same group's proclivity to consume most other content digitally. "These are people who aren't supposed to remember what it's like to even smell books," says Naomi S. Baron. "It's quite astounding." Earlier this month, Baron published Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World, a book that examines university students' preferences for print and explains the science of why dead-tree versions are often superior to digital (PDF).
Her conclusion: readers tend to skim on screens, distraction is inevitable and comprehension suffers. Researchers say readers remember the location of information simply by page and text layout — that, say, the key piece of dialogue was on that page early in the book with that one long paragraph and a smudge on the corner. Researchers think this plays a key role in comprehension — something that is more difficult on screens, primarily because the time we devote to reading online is usually spent scanning and skimming, with few places (or little time) for mental markers.
Another significant problem, especially for college students, is distraction. The lives of millennials are increasingly lived on screens. In her surveys, Baron was surprised by the results to the question of whether students were more likely to multitask in hard copy (1 percent) vs. reading on-screen (90 percent). "When a digital device has an Internet connection, it's hard to resist the temptation to jump ship."
Her conclusion: readers tend to skim on screens, distraction is inevitable and comprehension suffers. Researchers say readers remember the location of information simply by page and text layout — that, say, the key piece of dialogue was on that page early in the book with that one long paragraph and a smudge on the corner. Researchers think this plays a key role in comprehension — something that is more difficult on screens, primarily because the time we devote to reading online is usually spent scanning and skimming, with few places (or little time) for mental markers.
Another significant problem, especially for college students, is distraction. The lives of millennials are increasingly lived on screens. In her surveys, Baron was surprised by the results to the question of whether students were more likely to multitask in hard copy (1 percent) vs. reading on-screen (90 percent). "When a digital device has an Internet connection, it's hard to resist the temptation to jump ship."
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having the ability to touch any word on the screen and have definitions, translations, and wikipedia entries pop up as you read (which is great for many of the older books) is a fantastic benefit over and beyond the simple fact that so many of the world's classics are available free of charge wherever you have internet access is a bonus that can't be overlooked. Honestly, in terms of studying books such as Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire, I find myself eternally grateful for such capabilities.
Maybe. For certain books, perhaps ones with lots of foreign words or jargon, this could be an advantage, but sometimes there is such a thing as too much information. Maybe a literature student reads a word with which they are unfamiliar in a text. They *could* get the definition instantaneously through a link and move on, but is that actually learning? Did they lose track of the narrative by this distraction? What if the student struggled a bit but worked out the meaning from the context instead, and then later verified the definition?
Instant web access can supplement, but it also can be an overused crutch that inhibits critical thinking and learning skills. I'd be interested to know the breakdown by degree for the data presented.
Re: (Score:2)
I last read every Heinlein I could find, and he used some odd words. I could figure them out by context, but the real meaning is so much more interesting.
And few people later go find the definition. So many people have no idea what a whole pile of their vocabularies mean, really. And it gets mis-used.
And now, the word "literally" literally means absolutely nothing. "Beg the question" is not a logical fallacy. A instead of a good horror movie, a bad comedy can be called "terrible".
I accept that words lo
Re: (Score:2)
And then you didn't look the word up, and you didn't learn anything.
In the past when I didn't know an english word, I thought, well, I will look that up later ... and then never did and so lost some information from the book. With the Kindle I can immediately look the word up, get the information I need and therefore get more from the book itself.
The only thing that a paper book has over the Kindle, is the quick way to flip around. For example to a map or other information in the book. That is something rea
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
They *could* get the definition instantaneously through a link and move on, but is that actually learning?
Seriously? Yes, that's learning! Please tell me you're not calling a dictionary a "crutch". My 8th grade English teacher would weep.
I'm guessing you haven't actually used this feature in a modern e-reader, right? You press and hold a word on the screen, and the definition pops up over the text. You've now learned a new word, and it's taken about five or ten seconds, and you continue reading, now slightly more knowledgeable.
You're reading the book's content to broaden your mind, and trying to puzzle out a new word by context is much more of a distraction than actually learning a new word when it's right there and instantly available. There's nothing noble about taking a harder path to easily obtained knowledge. There are plenty of ways in which a person will need to struggle in order to learn new things. Looking up a the definition of a word shouldn't be one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you just don't activate the dictionary function on the thing you don't care about.
If you clicked on "learning" to get a definition you would find that is is :) For example, I used to read a bit of stuff by Morris West on paper and I did need to keep a paper dictionary handy, and I did learn things as a consequence.
Sadly there's too much fl
Re: (Score:2)
Instant web access can supplement, but it also can be an overused crutch that inhibits critical thinking and learning skills
DING! Do you want to passively just "know the answer" and probably forget it by the next time you query, or "understand the answer" by reasoning it out and having those save memory tracks (slightly) more available to you next time?
Even if I've completely overestimated "understanding it", you've had to spend more time actually thinking about it, so there is a better chance you'll remember it.
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
This survey was obviously done not taking into consideration dedicated e-readers and only focuses on smartphones and tablets. There's a world of a difference between the two types of devices. I'd like to see a study done just with dedicated e-readers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't read for pleasure on a glowing screen it is always distracting.
Re:Boomer here (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
E-ink came and went. I know some dedicated e-readers use something else, but I'm really curious how many people just have not even looked at some sort of e-ink.
Books, music, magazines in PDF - almost everything is amazingly readable.
I would like to see the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a recent review of a smartphone that had two screens, one LCD and one eInk. The modern eInk display is able to get a high enough refresh for interactive use and doesn't drain the battery when done. The screen that I'd love to see is eInk with a transparent OLED on top, so that text can be rendered with the eInk display and graphics / video overlaid on the OLED. The biggest problem with eInk is that the PPI is not high enough to make them colour yet. You get 1/3 (or 1/4 if you want a dedicated blac
Re: (Score:3)
It came and went for most because people couldn't justify buying an "inferior" screen and spending more money when they already owned a tablet or phone capable of doing the job.
That was the mistake. I charge my Kindle Paperwhite only once or twice a month and the brightness setting goes so low I don't even care that much that it's blue light. Though I've considered buying a filter to put over the screen.
I disagree that PDF is the gold standard for e-ink. Reflowable content is the future, with HTML-based
Re: (Score:2)
I use a Kindle, and have noticed the same. If I want to read text books, I need physical books; for stream data (fantasy novels), I use Kindle.
The location information is visual. The space on the book, the depth into the book, and so forth. It's also serial: cross-referencing involves flipping back to the physical space in which the book should have the correct information, and then recognizing if the information you find is older or newer, and correcting position.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You made her point without meaning too. Being able to "jump to Wikipedia entries" and have definitions pop up are DISTRACTIONS, that can take away from the comprehending and retaining the original content.
eReaders are functionally bad (Score:2)
Having the ability to touch any word on the screen and have definitions, translations, and wikipedia entries pop up as you read (which is great for many of the older books) is a fantastic benefit over and beyond the simple fact that so many of the world's classics are available free of charge wherever you have internet access is a bonus that can't be overlooked. Honestly, in terms of studying books such as Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire, I find myself eternally grateful for such capabilities.
I agree wholeheartedly that the eBook experience *could* be much better than physical books, but it isn't.
As an experiment, I recently picked up a reader and tried it (Sony eReader). Here's what I found:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Try a real e-reader, not that Sony piece of crap. I would have thrown that Sony against the wall the first time it took an hour to do anything. Try a bottom-end Kindle. It's way better than what you describe.
The first e-reader I had was a Sony touch. It worked really well for me, but I'm also just reading fiction on it and not scientific journals. It never took an hour to start up for me. I tried using it with the europe lonely planet ebook on a road trip once, and it was a bit useless since the maps and any images took forever to load. That sort of thing is not really what it was designed for though. For just reading normal books, it was great. I liked it better than the Nook and Kindle offerings at the time.
Re:eReaders are functionally bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Having the ability to touch any word on the screen and have definitions, translations, and wikipedia entries pop up as you read (which is great for many of the older books) is a fantastic benefit over and beyond the simple fact that so many of the world's classics are available free of charge wherever you have internet access is a bonus that can't be overlooked. Honestly, in terms of studying books such as Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire, I find myself eternally grateful for such capabilities.
I agree wholeheartedly that the eBook experience *could* be much better than physical books, but it isn't.
As an experiment, I recently picked up a reader and tried it (Sony eReader). Here's what I found:
Um... well. .. well, There’s Your Problem....
I've had a Kindle for 5 years now. My first was the Kindle keyboard. I now have the new Kindle Voyage. Not only that, but I can actually speak to the topic of using a Kindle for University as I bought text books for one of my Masters Degree classes, as an experiment.
- The Kindle e-reader has no glare. In fact, the e-Ink screen is SO good that you can read outside in bright sunshine with no problems whatsoever. I love being able to read on the beach.
- The Kindle is instant on when in sleep mode and can last for weeks. Just make sure to turn Wifi off.
- You can look up words
- I'm not sure how well it handles PDF files as I never use it for that. That's what I have my Android tablet for.
- You have all kinds of text formatting options with the Kindle
- You can easily bookmark locations in the Kindle and got back to that exact spot.
The Kindle is great for reading books. It lets you annotate, you can perform search, etc.
That being said, it isn't a book. With a book you can highlight, dog ear, make notes in the margins, etc. When I used a Kindle for my Masters course, I found that it was very good in some respects. For example, you don't have to carry a heavy book with you, it's more convenient to read when in the office, you can search for terms and look them up, etc. However, note taking was too restrictive. You can't, for example, draw a diagram or draw on the existing diagram. It's easier to find a place/topic in a book by just flipping through it or dogearing a page. You can use different colored highlighters, etc.
One of these days Amazon will come out with a touch screen color e-ink e-reader with a stylus that lets you create free-form notes. When you can actually take hand written notes in class and insert those notes as pages in between the actual pages of the e-textbook, that's when you will see e-readers take off as text book replacements.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little slow handling PDF. I have a paperwhite. It has the same margin issue as the Sony ereader. But is that a problem with the ereader or the publisher? The page numbers are usually in the margin for one thing since that's the way the physical page is laid out. Publishers need to move away from PDF to something reflowable like the common HTML-based ebook formats. If the publisher uses InDesign (likely), I know they've already laid out plenty of tools for exporting to a better ereader format th
Re: (Score:2)
So apparently you have a crappy device, I'm not sure why you think that would apply to other less crappy devices.
I own some crappy books in which the cheap binding glue sees pages fall out, does that mean the physical book experience is universally terrible?
Re: (Score:2)
I read on an iPad Mini, so your first five objections go away. The others are a matter of interface implementation, which will improve with time as software developers learn what functions the reading public wants (indicate pages remaining in chapter? Touch to identify word or character?)
Re: (Score:2)
However the PDF thing could be a real issue since some require a ridiculous amount o
Re: (Score:2)
If the contents say "figure 120" and you're looking at "figure 4", it's too time consuming to find it.
I'm not saying PDF is even a proper ereader format, but it does have hyperlinks. If the contents say figure 120, tap on that text. If that doesn't work, it's not the ereader's fault (it's the publisher). Once you're done viewing figure 120, hit the previous location button and you're back where you left off.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the ability to touch any word on the screen and have definitions, translations, and wikipedia entries pop up as you read (which is great for many of the older books) is a fantastic benefit over and beyond the simple fact that so many of the world's classics are available free of charge wherever you have internet access is a bonus that can't be overlooked. Honestly, in terms of studying books such as Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire, I find myself eternally grateful for such capabilities. Not to mention, if you can read the book on your cell phone, you always have the right reading material on the toilet. :)
Not just that, it's a lot easier to have tens or hundreds or thousands of books in a Kindle or an iPad. Particularly during moving. You don't have to worry about pages getting yellow, or particular books getting lost - once something is in your online library, it's there for good - unless and until you delete it.
distraction (Score:2)
And thus bring up thousand more distraction to break your reading. In my experience (having tested both) it is far far better for comprehension and reading "wellness" to simply note on a side paper what you want to search later and leave it there until you are finished reading. Unless there is a word which stop
Re: (Score:2)
Having the ability to touch any word on the screen and have definitions, translations, and wikipedia entries pop up as you read (which is great for many of the older books) is a fantastic benefit
Yeah, no kidding. I've caught myself trying it on printed magazines more than once.
Re:ut bright lights keep me awake. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone reading screens at night should already have an automatic redshifter installed, unless you explicitly need to stay awake for some reason. I use them for all my desktops, laptops and tablets.
The difference on your eyes is, pun intended, night and day.
Re:ut bright lights keep me awake. (Score:4, Funny)
No, I am not swearing at you. The software is research based also, not just a gimmick.
Of course this does not mean it is 100% bulletproof
Re: (Score:2)
On desktops and laptops I use redshift-gtk. It sits in the background and gradually adjusts the gamma of your screen based on your longitude/latitude and the time of day. There is an icon in the system tray that you can click to manually turn it off to see the difference or if you briefly have a need to see colour-accurate content.
I don't recall what one I have used for Android, though I have used Nightfilter in the past that works well (though manual).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall what one I have used for Android, though I have used Nightfilter in the past that works well (though manual).
It's called twilight. It works pretty well, I haven't had any problems with it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
redshift-gtk [jonls.dk] on Linux and f.lux [justgetflux.com] on Windows (although nowadays there is an f.lux version for Linux, but I'm used to redshift). Both use geolocation/entered geographical coordinates to match the changing color balance to your local day night cycle, and have adjustable day and night color temperature. Both work very well and considerably reduce eyestrain when working at night, and are set-up once and forget. I recommend them to everyone who spends hours in front of a screen.
(for Android I have Screen Filter,
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the backlight turned right down? I have never seen this happen to such a degree that makes a redshifter ineffective, though I don't own a Kindle so perhaps it's specific to those.
Re: (Score:2)
I like reading on screens because it keeps me awake. I also get a consistent reading experience without having to search for that corner with exactly the right light. And I can queue multiple books and magazines up in a device without adding to the weight, so I never run out of reading or forget to bring the book I'm on.
Re:ut bright lights keep me awake. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why, are you illiterate or something?
No, seriously -- if you have to go look up stuff often enough for that to be a big deal, then (a) the book is too hard for you and (b) you're missing the point of reading. You'd lose sense of how the story flows if you keep starting and stopping like that. When you run across the occasional unfamiliar word, it provides a better experience just to figure it out from context and move on.
At risk of feeding the trolls, I have to disagree.
I often have the experience "Oooh, great word! I've always kinda known what that means. Show me more. CLICK... Ooh, I get it now. Nice"
In my opinion, in significantly enhances my reading enjoyment.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, are you illiterate or something?
Ad hominem modded "insightful"? Seriously, the mods are feeding the trolls now? Alas, since this is modded up, I'll risk a response....
No, seriously -- if you have to go look up stuff often enough for that to be a big deal, then (a) the book is too hard for you
Some people like to challenge themselves once in a while. By your logic, we should never move beyond our elementary school readers.
and (b) you're missing the point of reading. You'd lose sense of how the story flows if you keep starting and stopping like that.
Gee, there's only one possible "point of reading"? And here I thought that one of the primary "points of reading" was to understand what the author was saying... which you can't very well do if you don't understand the words.
You're also talking about "stories" -- what about non-fiction? Or what about classic literature, which may use language a bit differently?
In all seriousness, one of the primary reasons why the written word was invented was so it could preserve information... whether that be stories or non-fiction or whatever. Why? So that other people can learn about it. The idea that reading only functions as entertainment is a modern phenomenon.
And if you're using reading to learn things, you should be prepared to encounter new ideas, which often may involve new words. I have taught graduate-level courses at universities, and one of the things I strongly encourage students to do is look up recurring words that they don't know. If you don't do that, you won't understand the text. And part of the learning process is often having a challenging reading that allows you to expand your ideas, which usually involves some new vocabulary at the same time.
When you run across the occasional unfamiliar word, it provides a better experience just to figure it out from context and move on.
Yes, that's a great exercise, and if you're in the middle of a fast-paced novel, it's probably a reasonable idea. But if you're actually trying to understand what an author is saying, and there's this word popping up a dozen times that you don't know, simply guessing what it means is missing an opportunity to learn something.
And recurring words are great for that kind of exercise, because it provides periodic reinforcement, which is one of the keys to learning natural language and recalling new things. Most authors -- even those who write "stories" and fiction -- tend to have "pet words" that aren't part of the standard core vocabulary everyone uses. When you see such a word and look it up, each time the author uses it again you'll reinforce that word. Suddenly, by the end of the book, you'll have expanded your vocabulary by a dozen or a few dozen words. (And you're more likely to remember the meaning than if you had just memorized the word for a vocab test or something -- seeing practical usage will aid recall.)
How else does one ever get to read books that are "too hard for you," as you put it? Or should we just ignore such books? By this logic, unless you were born with a giant vocabulary or hang around with people who use big words all the time, you're obviously not destined to read such weighty tomes....
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're actually trying to understand what an author is saying, and there's this word popping up a dozen times that you don't know, simply guessing what it means is missing an opportunity to learn something.
Or, you know, you could actually think about what you're reading and deduce the definition of the word from the context.
Re: (Score:2)
I am highly literate and every once in a while I come across a word I recognize but want to find the EXACT meaning of. Rather that than what YOU apparently do which is just keep going and remain ignorant...exactly like your post.
They also have other language dictionaries which have occasionally come in handy when a book is set in another country etc. Then there are the old world words that are not in common usage. And that is without Wikipedia u
Re: (Score:2)
No, I started with easy books and worked my way up. Although a little bit of dictionary-reading and vocabulary drills are necessary, it really does work better to learn the vast majority of vocabulary from context and experience reading lots and lots of stuff. That's why children's books have pictures, you know.
Besides, you missed the fact that I wasn't accusing the guy of being illiterate, just pointing out that
As a millenial (Score:4, Informative)
The entire supposition that we're all mildly autistic ADHD scatterbrains is idiotic. Anyone who's picked up an e-reader versus a book can easily tell what their preferences are, and millenials aren't some new mutant genotype.
Re:As a millenial (Score:4, Interesting)
I read at least two novels a month (sometimes more if I get the time) on my tablet and my phone. Most of my reading is on my tablet, because it's a 7" and a damned good size to read on, but when I'm on the road, I'll use my phone. The app syncs between the two so I can swap between the two. I generally use the Kobo app, and by and large it hides the status bar at the top so I'm not bothered by incoming emails. I've never had a problem.
Actually, the very first book I read on a portable device was a crappy little LG Keybo feature phone that I installed a nice little J2ME reader on. The font size was punched up a bit so I usually only got a paragraph of text per screen, but still didn't have any problem.
I'll be honest, I haven't bought a physical book in over a year. Even the technical books; a Powershell book and the OpenVPN official manual, are all eBooks.
Re:As a millenial (Score:5, Insightful)
I read several novels a month. But I wouldn't read a technical book on an ereader if you gave it to me for free and paid me to do it. And I've tried- I originally bought it thinking it would be great for tech books. But the slow speed of page switching, the inability to flip through pages rapidly, the reduced area per page all make it an unbearable experience. Ereaders are good for fiction reading, they're completely unsuitable for anything that isn't read beginning to end with no branching or backtracking.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn right. I bought some tech books on my kindle and ended up buying the dead trees because I just can't get into poorly sized pictures (usually code blocks, etc) and what not. Granted, I don't buy any more dead tree *fiction* and love my ereader for that. I still prefer magazines over digital ezines (I subscribe to Interzone, for example, vs buying the e-version), too, and part of that is because I still like reading the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they aren't all that great. They're in the 'let you do it' category, which is decidedly different from 'let you do well it'. I like this analogy: I can tap out a message on a telegraph key, or I could use a keyboard. They both let you do the same thing, but one does the job significantly better than the other.
The same thing is true for the e-reader vs the hard-copy, though in the case of the e-reader, you're dramatically more limited as there are fewer memory cues and navigation options of which you
Re: (Score:2)
Today's digital naive's are like the kids 30 years ago that knew how to program the VCR (I was one of them). Sure, the parents might still have a flashing 12:00 otherwise, but that doesn't make the kid fluent with technology except by comparison.
If I were a publisher, I'd definitely agree (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'm not, and eBooks are awesome. I don't have physical space for dead trees in my house, and I can't imagine millenials are doing any better. Let's face it, most stuff we read for pleasure doesn't need to be recalled with anything other than casual clarity. We're not hanging on to carefully wordsmithed literature, we're reading mass market fiction with a good story but relatively low literary value.
Publishers need to return their money to the shareholders so the rest of the world can get on with life.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've whittled my paper library down to a little more than a bookshelf, everything else electronic. I'm tired of piles of magazines and technical books, likewise, all the odd-sized science fiction books I read strewn about.
My tablet is handy, and when I finish one book or magazine, I have a selection from which to choose something new wherever I might be.
As references, my technical books are far easier to pull up on my PC, and as a bonus, quickly searchable, even when the subject isn't in the index.
Re: (Score:2)
People here look at the functional benefit of e-readers without realizing the intangible benefit of paper books. It has nothing to do with the books themselves. The fact that you're reading a book is mostly a mild diversion to the true purpose of reading a book, which is to get laid. Just like everything involving getting laid, the book is a prop that demonstrates certain things about you and given some of the more common traits among millenials these days the right type of book can set you heads above othe
Re: (Score:2)
And how else could I have taken War and Peace on a hiking vacation?
Re: (Score:2)
Get a Kobo, turn off WiFi and drop the ePubs onto the device via USB. That's what I do and no publisher has any control over it whatsoever. Currently reading World Without End this way, which clocks in at nearly 1000 pages and having seen the paper version I'm damn glad I don't have to read it that way. I'd probably sprain my wrists if I did, hefty as it is.
I'm not sure what the article is about (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I only skimmed the summary.
And it is good so, because it has nothing to do with "e-readers". Every single of the linked articles deals with the normal tablets, PCs and smartphones - e-readers are not even mentioned.
As somebody who switched to the Kindle several years ago, I had hard time believing the headline. As it turned out, the headline is full of bullshit and is not related to the content of the article.
Re: (Score:2)
The morons behind the article must not think that e-ink ereaders are a modern, contemporary device. Unitasking devices are great for certain things and this is one of those things.
The temptation to jump ship (Score:4, Informative)
In her surveys, Baron was surprised by the results to the question of whether students were more likely to multitask in hard copy (1 percent) vs. reading on-screen (90 percent). "When a digital device has an Internet connection, it's hard to resist the temptation to jump ship."
So get a Sony e-Reader (now super-cheap due to being abandoned) or a Nook Simple touch. They technically have internet access, but you can't really browse on them. Not because of the display, because of the browser.
Re: (Score:2)
The Sony eReader (haven't tried the Nook) and the Kindle non-Fire's are also very easy on the eyes. You can read them in the gym or wherever just as easily as a dead tree, but wipe them clean, they won't absorb sweat.
I can understand not wanting to read on phones/iPads/computer displays sometimes, they can give headaches and in my case mild nausea if I'm in the gym or something like that. I'm very sensitive to this sort of thing, but I think to a degree everyone gets fatigued by computer displays. In additi
Re: (Score:2)
I like the E-Ink readers like Kindle for the same reasons of eye strain. I do often end up reading books for study purposes on the Kindle for PC client as I find it faster to add highlights and turn pages on the PC. What I'd really like would be a larger format E-Ink device with two 8.5 by 11" screens so it lays out just like the book and rescanning the previous page becomes easier. Then I just need a pen style touch input to make easy highlights of text I need to reference again. As it is, even my 9.7" Kin
Re:The temptation to jump ship (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of the problem with ereaders is pdf files all seem formatted for A4 paper and are pretty bad on a computer screen and even worse on an ereader like looking at a room through a letterbox.
reformatting them is a nightmare too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
could probably cut that down to 6.27 by 9.7 (theres usually an inch of margin on most pages.
Re: (Score:2)
A 14" (or better yet, 13.5") 4:3 ratio screen would work great for an e-reader: it would be big enough to display a whole sheet of paper (either A4 or letter, I think) and still have room for menus and whatnot along the edges.
Re: (Score:2)
The Adobe reader on the NST, for all its various flaws, is pretty good at reflowing even PDFs which are not designed to be reflowable.
Anyone who publishes a PDF made with Adobe tools which is not reflowable is a dillhole, although I realise that this is small comfort when you're trying to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Well - PDF's can't be made to be reflowable either. The format is designed for print and absolutely fixed layouts. PDF doesn't really even have a concept of a paragraph. But Adobe InDesign, the tool most likely used to publish the book and make the PDF can generate ereader formats too and they have plenty of information on how to make that content look good on both formats without throwing out the existing layout entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Well - PDF's can't be made to be reflowable either.
PDFs could be made reflowable since at least Acrobat 5.
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent. They can reflow within a single page (not that publishers are even providing that). So one page can take up 4 screens on an ereader. But when you get to the end of the page, you see blank space until you flip pages and it starts on the next physical page.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, PDF's are bad on e-readers, but at least you can transcode them to native using something like calibre. Its not perfect obviously, but a whole lot better than suffering throught the squinting problem.
Re: (Score:2)
^this. An non-wired, dedicated e-reader removes the distraction. An an e-ink reader is far easier on the eyes over the long term than backlit displays. It still won't help with the issue of a book being three dimensional vs 2.
Don't buy it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Don't buy it (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be a silly bastard. If you did that, you would get the actual answer to the question you're posing, and not the answer you want.
Jesus, what a unsophisticated provincial type you are.
The distraction argument makes no sense (Score:2)
I can be distracted while reading a paper book just as easily as I can be distracted while reading on my Kindle.
Something smells funny here... you might almost think they didn't look at dedicated e-readers at all, but only at multifunction devices such as phones or tablets. Nah, no researcher would be that sloppy, right?
Who exactly funded this research again?
Re: (Score:2)
They were definitely referring to android/iOS tablets, which have all these push notifications and easy access to everything all the time, which is definately distracting to the average person. The average person also uses those as e-readers. A few years ago in the subway all you saw was kindles. Now you see a few (I see a bunch every day), but they're definitely outnumbered by people reading books on ipads or on their phones.
I'm still addicted to my kindle though and is my device of choice during my commut
Searching in text (Score:3)
Searching is the killer app of e-readers (or just PDFs) to me. Even if I have a physical book, which is sometimes easier to reference, I like having a PDF that I can search in. Fiction, nonfiction, reference manual...doesn't matter, still want search.
Non-readers love "real books" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I read probably more than everyone else in my circle of friends/family (except for some in graduate school) and I love e-readers. I recently spent $5 more on a text book that came in Kindle format not because reselling books is so shitty now, but because I could easily browse notes/highlights and bookmarks.
A class I'm taking now required me to buy the specific texts because they would reference page numbers in the books. I'll tell you it's hard going back to paper. Some of them are printed on ch
SAY IT'S NOT SO!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can definitely see the advantages that hard copy text books would have over e-ink displays. I don't do much reading of that sort anymore though and so my kindle suits me very well. It has a built in light if I'm reading in a darker space, I can adjust the font size if my eyes are tired, and it is smaller than many of the books I read physically. I can keep a whole library on it at any given time so that I can pick what I want to read based on the time I have, I like to read short stories on my lunch break
I prefer different formats for different things (Score:3)
Corgi Prefers Books (Score:5, Funny)
Our Corgi chewed up my entire GOT collection but won't touch an e-reader.
Luddites can keep their dead trees. (Score:4, Insightful)
For me, being able to haul around thousands of books and references on a 200 gram e-ink device that goes weeks on a single charge, syncs my current page to all other devices, allows access to dictionaries and wikipedia, and allows easy annotations outweighs all other potential benefits of classic books.
Guess I am a dead tree-er (Score:3, Interesting)
Conflicted interests? (Score:2)
E for reference, tree's my preference (Score:2)
I use electronic readers for work/hobby related reference material, however I'll always buy paperback novels when travelling. That's my preference when reading for pleasure.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I do the exact opposite. Don't you find illustrations and diagrams a pain when using an e-reader? I find it really hard to read charts, tables or what not in the e-book format. At least on my Kindle that is. And if I'm doing a project where there's dust, dirt, or solder around, I'd rather not have my laptop in the vicinity.
Re: (Score:2)
eInk readers are perfect for linear reading, such as fiction / non-fiction / stories / etc. I do all of my leisure reading (i.e. fiction) on either my Sony reader or on my 10" tablet. But they are not so good for reference works where you need to flip pages a lot or deal with lots of diagrams.
Reference works, such as books on technical topics, I usually resort to reading them on the 27" display on my desktop (although some are passable on a 10" tablet). The main rea
Long story short (Score:2)
How about "easy to read"... (Score:2)
What's with the "dead tree" crap? How about the "easy to flip thru" or "fun to use" version? After all, you don't refer to the popcorn you are eating while reading Slashdot as the "dead seed" snack.
I was going to post a long comment (Score:2)
but my LFR queue just popped.
Sick and tired of "Digital Natives" (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy hell am I ever sick and tired of the term "digital native".
I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s. My first computer was a TI-99 4/A with 16 K of RAM. Then a Commodore 128, Amiga, etc. I've been a "digital native" as long as I can remember.
I went back to university a few years ago (when I was in my 30s), and those digital native kids that I was taking classes with? Well they couldn't compute their way out of a paper bag. Sure they might know how to use Facebook - but native? Hardly. They still didn't understand the difference between a hard drive and RAM ... and they still made all the same bone-headed mistakes using a computer as their clueless peers in the 1990s made (hey! I just got a weird email with an attachment! Let me open it and see what it is!)
After graduating, I ended up working for the university, helping profs integrate and use technology in their courses - and every prof was under the mistaken assumption that these kids were somehow technologically gifted, just by virtue of having been born in the late 80s/early 90s.
Ridiculous. Kids today aren't digital natives.
Re: (Score:2)
The case: Simple Economics (Score:2)
E-books should cost 20% of what the current charges are.
Was going to buy an electronic copy of a book I own (after seeing it mentioned on /.) for easier access, but $50 for a hardcover is absurd when there is a copy somewhere in one of my boxes somewhere, and no electronic versions were available.
My wife has no objections to re-buying some titles, but it is absurd.
If I accidently tread on a book (Score:2)
That word... (Score:2)
I wonder if this study would turn out any different if they excluded all tablets disguised as readers. E-ink only.
A few pluses and minuses (Score:2)
For anything that has pictures, charts, graphs or formulas, I definitely want the dead tree version. I can't imagine using a Kindle for my college textbooks or any technical manuals The zoom features aren't great and you're sometimes reading text on one page pertinent to a graphic on another page. I already regret having bought 'Capital in the 21st Century" as an e-book precisely for that reason.
For pure text, like a novel, the Kindle is awesome. Portable, comfortable to hold, long battery life. If you
Re: (Score:2)
"Of course there's always the zombie apocalypse scenario where electricity would be hard to come by, but until then, the e-reader provides a lot of utility ."
Even in a zombie apocalypse charging usb devices shouldn't be that difficult. There are solar powered chargers cheaply and readily available all over the place which should get you through the first few years. After that infrastructure like electricity, computers and printers should become more available as people establish fortified settlements.
Re: (Score:2)
When they can make a practical (that is, affordable) non-emissive display that has screen update times that are fast enough as to be visually imperceptible, so that it is possible to pan or zoom around a page where you may want to look at small details in an illustration interactively, for example, and one that supports full color, I'll be all over that.
While books can't do the former either, at least I can bring them as close as I want to my face to improve clarity, while just viewing a page at a given
Re: (Score:2)
Full page color illustrations isn't the primary use case for ereaders. Some of us read books without pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "hard" in the sense that I couldn't read books before the e-readers, but still an unnecessary annoyance now that e-readers are available.
When I'm eating breakfast for instance, It's nice to not be using one hand to hold the book open.
Re: (Score:2)
The article was about textbooks. Not exactly captivating devices. And they didn't make one mention of e-ink devices.