NYT: Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain?

[Acreo Aeneas]

“The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said.

What kind of oxymoron statement is that? If LCDs (and other backlit displays) don't affect my eyes, then I shouldn't need a stronger prescription every few years.

“Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”

Still sounding like a marketing guy. He left out the part about the screen being backlit. The days of the old flickering screens died many many years ago.

[m-reader]

Sharpen your war axes people! There's a good discussion this morning on Slashdot on which e-reader is the best. There are already posts related to eye strain ...

(m-reader ducks for cover)

[balok]

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

In my opinion, a good ereader causes less eyestrain than paper.

What? Maybe if you're reading a 500-year-old manuscript, then yes, an ebook reader will cause less eye strain. Otherwise, there's no contest, paper wins every time in terms of contrast.

[balok]

Originally Posted by jackau

There should be no arguement over which screen type cause eye strain.
LCDs with backlight and frequent refresh rate causes eye strain. The major issue is the toll on eyes' ability to focus.

The savior is E-ink screen, it does not strain our eyes.

In my experience, the experts and technology blogs aren't very helpful on this issue. Personal experience has shown me that what you're saying is perfectly accurate. I don't see how LCD could be used advantageously in a dedicated ebook reader. Aside from eye strain, there's the whole battery life issue: Serious readers don't want to be recharging every four hours.

So a 11 inch E-ink grayscale ereader with 1Ghz processor, powerful enough to process pdf with fast zoom and browse, weight under 200 gram is my dream ereader.

Damn right! Let me add: this dream ereader should cost under $300 and have an open architecture. I've been waiting 10 years for it, and I think I'll have to wait another 5 or so.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Acreo Aeneas

What kind of oxymoron statement is that? If LCDs (and other backlit displays) don't affect my eyes, then I shouldn't need a stronger prescription every few years.



Still sounding like a marketing guy. He left out the part about the screen being backlit. The days of the old flickering screens died many many years ago.

Absolutely agree.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Acreo Aeneas

What kind of oxymoron statement is that? If LCDs (and other backlit displays) don't affect my eyes, then I shouldn't need a stronger prescription every few years.

That's called aging.

Most people with eye problems need stronger prescription every few years regardless of their viewing habits.

I just don't get why this topic is always so hostile. Read on whatever feels good to your eyes and let others do the same.

I don't see why e-ink diehards have to be so defensive, or others have to rant about how (insert different screen tech/new gadget) will lead to the death of e-ink.

There's plenty of room for all kinds of devices using e-ink or other reflective technology as well as LCD, OLED, pixel QI and other screens so everyone can find something that fits their needs.

[4-eyes]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

OK, quick question then. Have there been any (presumably recent) empirical studies that compare paper, eInk / epapers, LCD's, and CRT's, in terms of both eyestrain and reading comprehension?

The only studies I've seen so far are a bit older, were mostly paper vs CRT, in which CRT's fared poorly with both eye strain and reading comprehension.

Going by my own personal experiences I've read books off of CRT monitors, LCD (monitors, PDA and smartphone) and eInk and that's the order they are in decreasing amounts of eye strain after prolonged reading.

I find eInk to be by far the best technology for actually sitting down and reading books which entails focussing on text over a prolonged period as opposed to say using a browser on a monitor where you are constantly looking around the screen and away from it.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by 4-eyes

Going by my own personal experiences I've read books off of CRT monitors, LCD (monitors, PDA and smartphone) and eInk and that's the order they are in decreasing amounts of eye strain after prolonged reading.

Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an objective, scientific, empirical study. Anecdotes like this are not reliable evaluations... and not what I asked about.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by balok

What? Maybe if you're reading a 500-year-old manuscript, then yes, an ebook reader will cause less eye strain. Otherwise, there's no contest, paper wins every time in terms of contrast.

For a given font family and size, I'd agree. But I can change these on my electronic device.

(And I should add that many paperbacks far less than 500 years old have pretty poor paper/font/text size characteristics.)

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by Acreo Aeneas

What kind of oxymoron statement is that? If LCDs (and other backlit displays) don't affect my eyes, then I shouldn't need a stronger prescription every few years.

I needed a stronger prescription every two years from my 17 to 23 years. Now I work as a software engineer and I spend my whole day in front of a triple-screen PC (two LCD and a CRT screen), and still my sight is now somewhat stable: last time I had to change eyeglasses was 6 years ago.

According to my oculist, my sight defect was linked to the growth hormone, and from 17 to 23 years of age that hormone has a peak; always according to him, staring to a strong light source can cause damages to the eye, even permanent blindness, but LCD and CRT are too weak to do that kind of damage. He also pointed out that "your sight works by staring at light: the light reflected by objects. If you see something it's because it reflects light at you" (approximately these were his words).

The fact that you need a stronger prescription every few year could be linked to simple aging of your eye and reduction on your cornea's flexibility... it depends on what kind of sight defect you have.

Now, I have to say though that I do prefer e-ink to read, usually. But it's not because of eye strain as much as battery duration, similarity with paper, and the fact that it doesn't produce almost any heat (read with your laptop on your legs, and your nuts will tell you what I mean :P )

[LJ Miehe]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The glossy screen doesn't matter when it's lit up unless you're in direct sunlight or something. In normal lighting conditions you won't notice it's glossy when it's lit up, just like the iPhone or other glossy screen LCD screen devices.

But the thing I like about the article is that it acknowledges that every screen type has it's pros and cons for reading.

Something the "if it glows it blows" crowd here doesn't seem to acknowledge. All have their pros and cons, and what's best for you will depend on your typical reading conditions, what you need out of your device etc.

I love my Kindle, but I get annoyed to death with all the "if it glows it blows nonsense" and saying devices like the iPad can't be used as readers because of the screen tech.

Every screen type has it's pros and cons, everyone's eyes and typical reading conditions are different. There's just no need for people to talk in such absolutes, rather than just simply stating their own opinion that they only want to read on e-ink.

Screen technology is very important if not the single most important element in any digital reading device so to dismiss it is foolish imho. eInk is a far better screen tech to read than a LCD or LED backlit display, it mimics paper pretty well. Even if you don't notice the glare or see the gloss it is still affect you over long periods of time. In the extreme that is like saying I don't believe in gravity because I can't feel it until you walk off a cliff and then you notice is all a sudden, I know thats extreme but I wanted to reinforce my opinion against this notion you need to see something to have it affect you.

With that said the iPad will be a great device for newspapers and magazines for its color display and reading in short bursts, for reading novels I don't think it will compete with a real eInk display, it will do it but I am betting after hours of reading you will notice your eyes strain or you just won't be able to handle reading for that long. Thats why I am getting both, one for book and the other for subscription based material and web surfing.

.02

[Demas]

Originally Posted by LJ Miehe

Screen technology is very important if not the single most important element in any digital reading device so to dismiss it is foolish imho.

Nope. Form factor is.

Otherwise you'd stick to books... which have paper "displays" as highly esteemed by reflection display advocates. Imagine an e-reader "monitor" that provide perfect paper experience... but is chained to a desktop, with a power cord, in sizes no less than 23". You wouldn't care about such a device.

e-ink is a compromise of readability, affordability, form factor, and battery life... if the compromises it chooses makes you happy, terrific, but that's far different from saying it is empirically superior for readability where other technologies elect a different balance of compromises to enhance that.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by 4-eyes

Going by my own personal experiences ...

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as an objective, scientific, empirical study.

They never claimed it did. Is your complaint that they wanted to participate in the discussion, but did so outside of the restrictions you have determined should be in place?

[LJ Miehe]

Originally Posted by Demas

Nope. Form factor is.

Otherwise you'd stick to books... which have paper "displays" as highly esteemed by reflection display advocates. Imagine an e-reader "monitor" that provide perfect paper experience... but is chained to a desktop, with a power cord, in sizes no less than 23". You wouldn't care about such a device.

e-ink is a compromise of readability, affordability, form factor, and battery life... if the compromises it chooses makes you happy, terrific, but that's far different from saying it is empirically superior for readability where other technologies elect a different balance of compromises to enhance that.

I will have to give you that correction to my point, now after thinking about it, is form factor and the portability is the most important but the screen technology is the second most important element of a eReader device. eInk beats LCD/LED hands down, at this point it does not compare when you are trying to emulate paper.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Demas

Otherwise you'd stick to books... which have paper "displays" as highly esteemed by reflection display advocates.

It is a good display, but as far as "screen technology" goes, paper in pretty poor: it takes more and more space the bigger the book is, it does not allow any kind of modification, in fact, for every piece of content, you have to buy a new "screen"

Imagine an e-reader "monitor" that provide perfect paper experience... but is chained to a desktop, with a power cord, in sizes no less than 23". You wouldn't care about such a device.

It would be a nice computer monitor, still

By that reasoning, I could say that battery life is still more important: Imagine the perfect screen, the perfect size... but with a battery that lasts 1 minute, and needs a 4-hour recharge. Or I could say it's general "toughness": Imagine the perfect device, but that has to be handled with gloves in a dust-free atmosphere...

At the end of it, all factors are important, but the screen is probably the most directly involved in the usage the device is intended for.