|
"Eyestrain" as used by the doctor is presumably a medical term with a medical definition. I don't have any problem accepting the fact that reading on an LCD screen is not "medically" worse than reading on an e-ink screen - at least not for most people.
However, that doesn't mean that when people state that they prefer reading on an e-ink screen to an LCD screen due to "eye strain," that there isn't something to that...it's just that what they call "eye strain" isn't (again, for most people) the medical condition known as eye strain. But that doesn't mean it's not something real.
I read on an LCD screen 8-10 hours per day; sometimes more. Mostly black letters on a white background. I don't believe it has caused any medical issues for me. *However,* when I read for pleasure, I *much prefer* reading on my Kindle (just as I always preferred reading books to trying to read on the computer). I wouldn't describe it as an eyestrain issue...it's just more relaxing reading on e-ink. Perhaps because the e-ink is more visually quiet.
If I don't have access to a book or an e-ink reader, my next preference is the Kindle or Stanza app's white-on-black mode...which does tend to support the view that it is the backlighting that causes reading on an LCD to be less pleasant. For most people.
Millions of people have bought e-ink readers, all of whom also had access to LCD screens, presumably for free. The e-book market is dominated by Kindle (76%) and B&N (20%), with the remaining 20% being divided between e-ink readers like Sony and Kobo and non-e-ink readers like the iPad. This also suggests that most heavy readers, given the choice, prefer to read on e-ink. (Note that the figures aren't necessarily as one-sided in favor of e-ink as they appear, since many iPad users will read on their device using the Kindle app).
So while medical eyestrain is perhaps a myth, the fact that most people who read heavily prefer e-ink over LCD screens is not.
|