Interesting research re the differences between reading via e-book v. hardcopy. None, apparently:
http://mashable.com/2011/10/20/reading-ebook-versus-print
-IainB
Huh? Probably sponsored by Amazon...
...for any length of time reading the printed book is far kinder on the eyes.
-Carol Haynes
+1
“There are no disadvantages to reading from electronic reading devices compared with reading printed texts,”
Ahem...
I call "bullshit".
That is such wild nonsense.
Form factor form factor form factor form factor!
+ You can stick your fingers in the previous page to quickly zip back, or several fingers in parts of the book to quickly zip between them. e.g. You look up a reference in the index, then stick your fingers in different sections of the book where that reference occurs, then zip between them. You cannot do that in an ebook.
- Ok, there are tools to help you do that, but they are nowhere near as fast as flipping with your fingers. Has anyone ever tried to flip more than a single page in an ebook reader? It's mind numbingly painful. Flipping 1 page is bad enough. Flipping more than one page is idiotic. You just cannot do it. Frame rates and software speeds are far too slow. It cannot be done *reasonably* right now. (This should change in the future.)
+ You can quickly markup a book with pen, pencil, or highlighter in ways that are faster, easier and more intuitive than with some software tools. e.g. Underline some text, highlight one of the words, write a note in the margin, and draw a quick figure.
- The software tools available right now are slow an unintuitive. Writing with your hand is simply far more versatile than with software. Until there is intelligent software *and hardware* that will let you *write* and *draw* and *underline* and *highlight* with nothing more than your finger, paper books will be superior. (I mean that the hardware needs to allow sophisticated input, and the software needs to understand that, and translate intentions properly so that it can recognize handwriting and type that as text. Graffiti anyone?
)
+ The resolution of paper is, oh, let's say, round about, a LOT~! Pixel pitch in epaper is good, but it's not paper.
- This is where the claim could be true. If at all. However, it is entirely dependent on the display technology being fine enough as to make *imperceptible* differences truly and completely irrelevant. I say *imperceptible* because whether or not you *notice* something *consciously* doesn't mean that it isn't happening. e.g. The "boil a frog" thing -- it doesn't notice the gradual rise in temperature. Same thing goes for humans. We *are* affected by things that we do not *notice*.
I'm certain that others could come up with other reasons, but I don't think it's necessary to illustrate that the claim:
“There are no disadvantages to reading from electronic reading devices compared with reading printed texts,”
Is just pure bullshit.
Notice here:
...according to a study by Research Unit Media Convergence of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) in cooperation with MVB Marketing- und Verlagsservice des Buchhandels GmbH, operator of the ebook platform Libreka!.
Conflict of interest anyone?
Recent Posts
