Kindle - Good or bad.

[untethered]

Comments from Several hundred years ago:

Amusing, but you're implying that people are resistant to new technologies per se rather than simply not seeing the point of this particular innovation at its current level of development.

Very few people would argue that reading from a screen is an idea that won't catch on -- after all, it already has. (I no longer take the print edition of Urban75; do you?) But the Kindle and suchlike currently aren't attractive to the majority of readers. That doesn't make them Luddites but discriminating and sophisticated consumers.

 

[kyser_soze]

You have no idea whether Kindle etc are attractive, or otherwise, to the majority of readers, so don't pretend for one second that you do.

My point is that similar comments and sentiments have been levelled at many, many technologies in the past (and will continue to be in the future no doubt), and that the basic forms of the complaints don't really change; I suspect neither do the personalities of those who make the complaints.

I also felt that the hand made vs gutenberg point was pretty valid - there was no need for the printing press, just as there is no need for the e-book. Whereas the gutenberg press opened up publishing, so the e-book could potentially open up writing/publishing generally, while also being amazingly convenient. The aesthetics arguments about how it all 'feels' are personally subjective and largely pointless IMV. A bad book is a bad book, no matter what medium it appears in.

 

[untethered]

You have no idea whether Kindle etc are attractive, or otherwise, to the majority of readers, so don't pretend for one second that you do.

Whereas you have conducted extensive research, as yet unpublished.

My point is that similar comments and sentiments have been levelled at many, many technologies in the past (and will continue to be in the future no doubt), and that the basic forms of the complaints don't really change; I suspect neither do the personalities of those who make the complaints.

I am referring to the very large number of people who already spend considerable amounts of time reading from screens. The general impression I get is that this device, in its current form, isn't a significant improvement over either paper books for many uses and laptop/smartphone reading for others.

The aesthetics arguments about how it all 'feels' are personally subjective and largely pointless IMV. A bad book is a bad book, no matter what medium it appears in.

No need to worry about the user experience, because it's "subjective" and "pointless". I take it you don't design for a living.

 

[temper_tantrum]

Digital rights management really puts me off. Same with music to be honest. In what sense do I really own something if the person who sold it to me five years ago can come round to my house and take it away again?

 

[Blagsta]

I can't see the point personally. A book has the all the functionality that you need.

^
This.

 

[untethered]

Digital rights management really puts me off. Same with music to be honest. In what sense do I really own something if the person who sold it to me five years ago can come round to my house and take it away again?

Fine. But many people now choose to rent digital content rather than buy it. Music subscription services are very popular. It's not unreasonable to think that people might be happy to rent e-books. After all, they borrow them from the library.

 

[kabbes]

Isn't it pretty much the same argument as downloading music v's Vinyl/CD's?

I want my whole music collection available at all times, if at all possible. I only ever want one book at once.

 

[kyser_soze]

...
No need to worry about the user experience, because it's "subjective" and "pointless". I take it you don't design for a living.

No I don't. The 'user experience' of a 'book' is primarily centred around the content, not the medium, of the book. Hence my comment about a bad book being a bad book irrespective of whether it's printed on wood-pulp or appearing on a screen. Same goes for this - all the threads that have come up about e-books generally revolve around people attempting some kind of will to power about the aesthetic importance of printing on paper vs digital media.

Fine, plenty of people don't like e-books. All well and good - admit that it's a subjective aesthetic issue and stop banging on about technology in search of a problem and similar arguments; and never forget that technology often exists in a vacuum before finding it's final application (who'd have thought that a small piece of software written for telephone engineers to send messages would become larger than voice communications on mobile phones?).

 

[temper_tantrum]

Fine. But many people now choose to rent digital content rather than buy it. Music subscription services are very popular. It's not unreasonable to think that people might be happy to rent e-books. After all, they borrow them from the library.

I didn't say everyone else in the world had to agree with me, or anything. I merely said that's how I feel.

 

[Blagsta]

Isn't it pretty much the same argument as downloading music v's Vinyl/CD's?

No. Books don't need re-charging and don't break if you drop them.

 

[kabbes]

Fine, plenty of people don't like e-books. All well and good - admit that it's a subjective aesthetic issue and stop banging on about technology in search of a problem and similar arguments; and never forget that technology often exists in a vacuum before finding it's final application (who'd have thought that a small piece of software written for telephone engineers to send messages would become larger than voice communications on mobile phones?).

I remember reading some research once, actually, that indicated that the underlying psychological and physiological mechanisms involved for reading print are different to those involved for reading off a screen. With print, the eye flicks back more to earlier paragraphs and the reader is more likely to flick back pages to check something. With a screen, the reader will stick to the paragraph being read.

So there is a genuine difference in the reading experience, for good or for bad.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well it is, since it's a debate about medium vs content for many people. Books are better because you can 'feel the pages'. That's habit, nothing special about printed words on paper; in many ways it's the last gasp of the 'natural=better' conditioning, the idea that being on natural fibre somehow validates the content more, that the overall experience is objectively better than reading using digital media.

 

[Blagsta]

I remember reading some research once, actually, that indicated that the underlying psychological and physiological mechanisms involved for reading print are different to those involved for reading off a screen. With print, the eye flicks back more to earlier paragraphs and the reader is more likely to flick back pages to check something. With a screen, the reader will stick to the paragraph being read.

So there is a genuine difference in the reading experience, for good or for bad.

I find it very difficult to read more than a couple of paragraphs on computer screen, I find it much easier to concentrate on printed material. I'm not uncommon in this either. Whether that's to do with refresh rates on monitors and ebooks will be easier to read, I dunno. I suspect it's something to do with incident vs reflected light.

 

[kabbes]

Well it is, since it's a debate about medium vs content for many people. Books are better because you can 'feel the pages'. That's habit, nothing special about printed words on paper; in many ways it's the last gasp of the 'natural=better' conditioning, the idea that being on natural fibre somehow validates the content more, that the overall experience is objectively better than reading using digital media.

Is that in response to my pointing out that the *way* in which people read is different for print and screen? Because if so, I think you missed the point.

 

[kabbes]

I find it very difficult to read more than a couple of paragraphs on computer screen, I find it much easier to concentrate on printed material. I'm not uncommon in this either. Whether that's to do with refresh rates on monitors and ebooks will be easier to read, I dunno. I suspect it's something to do with incident vs reflected light.

No, it's to do with how easy it is to flick back to previously read passages.

 

[kyser_soze]

I remember reading some research once, actually, that indicated that the underlying psychological and physiological mechanisms involved for reading print are different to those involved for reading off a screen. With print, the eye flicks back more to earlier paragraphs and the reader is more likely to flick back pages to check something. With a screen, the reader will stick to the paragraph being read.

So there is a genuine difference in the reading experience, for good or for bad.

That's conditioning and practice tho, it's got nowt to do with the media concerned...does this research give any indication as to why people stick with the paragraph being read on a screen, but feel happy to refer back to pages on a boook? Is this inherent in the media, or down to training that going back and forth using 'screens' can mean getting lost?

All this shows is there is a habitual difference in reading screen and book, not that there is an inherent difference between the two media.

 

[Blagsta]

No, it's to do with how easy it is to flick back to previously read passages.

I think it's more than that.

 

[D'wards]

Hopefully if you did it would electrocute you so you wouldn't be able to make this pointless argument anymore.

Oooh, someones tired!

 

[kabbes]

That's conditioning and practice tho, it's got nowt to do with the media concerned...does this research give any indication as to why people stick with the paragraph being read on a screen, but feel happy to refer back to pages on a boook? Is this inherent in the media, or down to training that going back and forth using 'screens' can mean getting lost?

All this shows is there is a habitual difference in reading, not that there is an inherent difference between the two media.

No, it is inherent in the media. A page is capable of displaying a LOT more readable words than a screen of the same size, meaning the eye tends to scan a larger volume of words at once. And flicking back a page for a second is very easy, whereas scrolling around is tiring.

You're making people out to be stupid, but they're not. Most people read tonnes of stuff on a computer screen every day of their lives and have done so for at least a decade. If they say that they find it more difficult to read words on a screen than on print, this isn't because they are useless or are clinging on to obsolete technologies. It's because they genuinely find it more difficult to read from a screen than from print.

 

[kabbes]

I think it's more than that.

There probably are other mechanisms involved too, but in the study I read (about five years ago now, so don't ask me to find it!) they attached one of those eye monitors to people so they could see where their pupil was pointing. They found that when reading on screen, the eye was rigidly fixed on one point. However when reading from a book, the eye scanned all over the place.

 

[kyser_soze]

Just as I can't prove my point (yet...give it 5 years of e-books and I reckon that much of kabbes comments about the differences in reading will be resolved as people become more accustomed to the technology), you can't say it's inherent in the media. You also prove my point:

And flicking back a page for a second is very easy, whereas scrolling around is tiring.

Habit and interface is all this is. You don't scroll between pages on an e-book, you flick, just the same as you would printed word.

I'd also question your comment about reading tons of stuff off a PC screen. I don't think they do: there is lots of reading from PC screens, but I don't think people read a huge amount of content from them.

 

[likesfish]

at the moment way to expensive.
at the moment if I drop a book in the bath or leave it outside in the rain drop or step on it most I lose is one book easily replaced for less than a £10
magazines newspaper £1 to £6
give it another ten years maybe but not for me at the current price

 

[kabbes]

Yes, if the technology keeps improving then in five years there might be a screen good enough to compete with print. I'm certainly never saying never. I don't have any strong intrinsic attachment to print media.

Until then, however, I'll stick with the book. I had a look at the Kindle-clones in Waterstones last week, as it happens, and I was unimpressed. There were a few hundred words visible at any one time at most. That's hardly conduicive to the mind of scan-reading I'm talking about. I'd find it way annoying.

 

[D'wards]

at the moment way to expensive.
at the moment if I drop a book in the bath or leave it outside in the rain drop or step on it most I lose is one book easily replaced for less than a £10
magazines newspaper £1 to £6
give it another ten years maybe but not for me at the current price

That was my point that i got a death wish imposed on me for. I have dropped books in the bath (Atonement was all big for the last half). Plus i have had drinks/shopping leak in my bag over books, or i have fallen asleep whilst reading in bed, and the books falls to the floor.

I like the fact you can mistreat a book and will still be readable. Depending on the size of the tome i sometimes stick one in the back pocket of me jeans if i'm off out. Doesn't matter if you sit on it - wouldn't do that with an e-book.

I have left a couple of books on the train before also, put down next to me when i'm gathering my things to get off. Just buy another, or visit the library - no biggie.

 

[Yossarian]

Comments from Several hundred years ago:

'I don't like this dried wood-pulp stuff. I much prefer the feel of a good reed-based paper'

'Hand written and illuminated manuscripts are perfectly OK. This gutenberg thing is just technology in seach of a problem/technology for technologies sake'

Comments from 1975:

'You think they're a bit crap now but someday all you Luddites will be wearing digital watches.'

 

[kabbes]

... or possibly:

"You think it's a bit crap now but someday all you Luddites will be doing all your cooking in a microwave!"

 

[untethered]

Why would I want to send "email"? No-one I know has got an email address, but I can write anyone a letter and put it in the postbox and it will be delivered promptly and efficiently by the smart Royal Mail postman.

 

[kyser_soze]

Comments from 1975:

'You think they're a bit crap now but someday all you Luddites will be wearing digital watches.'

FWIW I wouldn't buy one of the current ones - they're interesting (altho I am getting product envy when I see people using the Sony on the tube ), but are like the original Walkman; bulky and lacking in features.

 

[kabbes]

Why would I want to send "email"? No-one I know has got an email address, but I can write anyone a letter and put it in the postbox and it will be delivered promptly and efficiently by the smart Royal Mail postman.

How is that analogous in any way whatsoever? Nobody is arguing that there is no benefit to any technology. And email, in particular, took off in a big way pretty much the moment it was available. Everybody could immediately see the advantages of it.

 

[untethered]

How is that analogous in any way whatsoever? Nobody is arguing that there is no benefit to any technology. And email, in particular, took off in a big way pretty much the moment it was available. Everybody could immediately see the advantages of it.

No, you're arguing that some technologies catch on quickly, some slowly, some not at all.

Email was standardised in RFC 822 in 1982. It wasn't near-ubiquitous in business and personal life until around 2000 (along with the internet connections necessary to transport it, of course).