Ebook reader survey on preferred format(s)

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I think the real key will be the industry deciding on a standard screen size for e-readers.f Have a set 9-10" size that all magazines, text books, newspapers etc. use. Novels that are just text don't matter so much as they can be reflowed. People who want a 6" reader for novels can get one and just have limited options for things other than regular books, other's can by the larger reader to use for books and magazines etc.

Until that happens we will have multiple formats with various reflow issues.

Again, I don't much mind as I don't have much current interest in e-reading beyond novles, and plain text reflows fine regardless of format (I'm not picky about occasional formatting errors). Magazines, PDF journal articles etc. I'll stick with print or web versions for now.

I have recently seen an excellent (not released) epub, heavily image laden with remarkable layout. It reflowed quite well on my Sony.

As to a 'standardized' size, I don't think you will see that. And I don't want it. Personal preference is a wonderful thing and something we should be moving towards. Some people like 6" screens, some a little bigger, others like a 5" or even a 4" screen so they can fit it in their pockets. Others again prefer larger screens like as the 9.7" eInk, sometimes for poor eyesight, others for larger format texts, manuals, magazines, comics, etc. And then there are those wishing for even larger readers available.

-MJ

[ahi]

HTML and CSS can achieve amazing things, but no reflow format can achieve the standard of quality that something purposefully (and rigidly) typeset can. Literally impossible, since no software automation on its own can get typesetting right for anything complex enough to be worth typesetting.

Jon, your suggestion about dumping PDFs into ePubs (given that Sonist was talking about properly generated eBook device targeted ones) is analogous to people dumping HTML to plaintext. I don't begrudge you wanting readable eBooks today, but the zeal with which you pledge to effectively degrade the quality of your own eBooks in perpetuity for the benefit of font resizing is odd.

Not to mention font resizing is a dubious feature when put in that term. I'm fairly certain the issue for the majority of people is not font resizing, but wanting a *specific* font size to be used by the eBook. Something trivial to address in ways that don't bestow the subjective benefit of text reflowing along with the very objective quality degradation that cannot help but bring.

Typographic quality is difficult to quantitatively discern when you are not familiar with typography, but very easy to recognise when you are seeing something typographically well done alongside something that isn't. And the reason for that is has to do with the fact that good typography makes for good readability. Even if you are not fuming about the poor quality of your reflow eBooks, you would have a more pleasant reading experience with something professionally made for the display size that you have and with the font size that you prefer.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I think that's the point I'm driving at. If the output becomes good enough and the creation easy enough so that ePub matches (and maybe surpasses) PDF then PDF itself is pointless - unless you do need a fixed size, I suppose....

But fixed layout is the whole point. For complex publications (and these are the ones that will likely drive the adoption of larger, color screens.)

Look at the relatively simple layout I posted, and how terrible it looks when it reflows.

If reflow was so important for EVERYTHING, why not just stick to text documents?

Or just make doc the standard format, so you can get some graphics in, and call it a day.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

If the output becomes good enough and the creation easy enough so that ePub matches (and maybe surpasses) PDF then PDF itself is pointless

Another way of saying what you say there is: "The day websites become good enough that HTML+CSS matches or even improves professionally typeset magazines and books, then magazines and books become pointless."

Ok... so my rephrasing kind of breaks after the comma, but, with all due respect: That will never happen. I really am not exaggerating in my "impossible to automate typesetting" claims. Can't be done: it requires a person. Automatic reflow is handing the keys to hardware+software--it will look like it was done by hardware+software instead of a person.

Websites have been around for well over a decade, and they remain typographically horrible. Designers, web designers themselves even generally acknowledge that.

The approach ePub takes (HTML + CSS) already failed to make the web as good as professionally produced print materials; it cannot make eBooks achieve that goal either.

But I think I should stop, because this is a long-running argument wherein the two sides do not tend to concede points to one another.*

- Ahi

* I mean in general, not specifically in this thread.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

HTML and CSS can achieve amazing things, but no reflow format can achieve the standard of quality that something purposefully (and rigidly) typeset can. Literally impossible, since no software automation on its own can get typesetting right for anything complex enough to be worth typesetting.

Jon, your suggestion about dumping PDFs into ePubs (given that Sonist was talking about properly generated eBook device targeted ones) is analogous to people dumping HTML to plaintext. I don't begrudge you wanting readable eBooks today, but the zeal with which you pledge to effectively degrade the quality of your own eBooks in perpetuity for the benefit of font resizing is odd.

Not to mention font resizing is a dubious feature when put in that term. I'm fairly certain the issue for the majority of people is not font resizing, but wanting a *specific* font size to be used by the eBook. Something trivial to address in ways that don't bestow the subjective benefit of text reflowing along with the very objective quality degradation that cannot help but bring.

Typographic quality is difficult to quantitatively discern when you are not familiar with typography, but very easy to recognise when you are seeing something typographically well done alongside something that isn't. And the reason for that is has to do with the fact that good typography makes for good readability. Even if you are not fuming about the poor quality of your reflow eBooks, you would have a more pleasant reading experience with something professionally made for the display size that you have and with the font size that you prefer.

I understand where you're coming from, I like a well laid-out book as much as anybody else, but might we not see well laid-out and typographically sound documents within the near future? CSS3 and HTML5 are around the corner, bringing many advanced features. Why not opt for a format that can be accessed by the most people at the same time - across web browsers with plugins, e-readers, smartphones, tablets etc in the future. A format that will retain its core meaning as XHTML, that might at any time be extracted/converted/upgraded as the technology matures.

The problem might be that once a PDF is produced then that's all she wrote. Extraction and manipulation from that point on is either non-existent or too much bother to contemplate. But with ePub as a standard, we might very soon see many applications that can take these files and manipulate them at levels we haven't even conceived of yet.

Again, I'm just wondering out loud.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

The approach ePub takes (HTML + CSS) already failed to make the web as good as professionally produced print materials; it cannot make eBooks achieve that goal either.

But I think I should stop, because this is a long-running argument wherein the two sides do not tend to concede points to one another.*

- Ahi

* I mean in general, not specifically in this thread.

Good, because I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to understand the pros and cons of both approaches. I really don't know enough to say outright which will survive (although I do have a gut feeling that ePub or some derivative of such will eventualy become the standard).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sonist

O.K.. I found some random (not very complex, or good) layout on the web, and sent it to someone with Indesign 4 to export to EPUB and PDF.

I didn't tell them why I needed this, and asked them not to manipulate the file.

Attached are the results, as screengrabs. The EPUB was viewed with Calibre (Stanza refused to open it.)

Have a guess which is the PDF, and which is the EPUB (hint, the one which reflows

__________

Can we have a look at the ePub using ADE?

[JSWolf]

If you give me a PDF, I'm stuck with it. Give me an ePub and I can edit it to fit my needs if I want.

[ahi]

Ok... I'll go on. Just tell me if I get out of line.

Firstly, I sympathise with the issue you bring up about preservation. However I am not certain it is as dire as you suggest it. The fact that you or I cannot in under a minute recreate a gorgeous PDF in HTML or whatever else doesn't really have any worse implications than the same going for printed books.

If the eBook needs to be recreated (and, keep in mind, by those days conversion galore ought no longer be the only way to enjoy a variety of books--only exceptional circumstance ought to require it) in a worst case scenario it can always be retyped or OCR'd and corrected and then typeset anew.

Secondly, like both Sonist and I stress now and then: the rigidity is a feature, not a bug. The same document cannot work on a myriad devices with nary a thing in common without considerable degradation (or, my notion of the same PDF holding multiple versions for different anticipated screen sizes and font sizes). HTML works and is good enough... but without a typesetter it can never move beyond good enough with anything typographically complex. And, as noted in my last message, it hasn't in over a decade of websites.

Third, I don't necessarily think that currently copyrighted materials (so long as they are attentively typeset for a reasonable variety of devices) ought to be readily extractable. Piracy happens in no small part due to its ease and convenience. DRM is trivial to disable in comparison to the task of 100% validly/correctly converting PDFs. If publishers do their part for the consumer, PDFs are the ideal format. Assuming you can get over the irritation of not having control over your books that you never head prior to your eBook device, and are willing to instead just sit back and enjoy your beautiul professional quality eBook--truly the equal of your neighbour's heavy and dusty hardcover.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If you give me a PDF, I'm stuck with it. Give me an ePub and I can edit it to fit my needs if I want.

Why is it that you don't see the fact that you need to edit it to fit your needs a failure of the product? Because it really is just that.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Books have never standardized on size and eBook Readers will not either. Different sizes meet different needs, there is no one size fits all device.

Dale

Books never needed to. Different pieces of paper are used for different books.

eBook devices have considerable reason to standardize, and the right (a medium, in the viccinity of 6 inches by 9 inches) size is something that the vast majority of books would be typesettable to.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

Ok... I'll go on. Just tell me if I get out of line.

Firstly, I sympathise with the issue you bring up about preservation. However I am not certain it is as dire as you suggest it. The fact that you or I cannot in under a minute recreate a gorgeous PDF in HTML or whatever else doesn't really have any worse implications than the same going for printed books.

If the eBook needs to be recreated (and, keep in mind, by those days conversion galore ought no longer be the only way to enjoy a variety of books--only exceptional circumstance ought to require it) in a worst case scenario it can always be retyped or OCR'd and corrected and then typeset anew.

Secondly, like both Sonist and I stress now and then: the rigidity is a feature, not a bug. The same document cannot work on a myriad devices with nary a thing in common without considerable degradation (or, my notion of the same PDF holding multiple versions for different anticipated screen sizes and font sizes). HTML works and is good enough... but without a typesetter it can never move beyond good enough with anything typographically complex. And, as noted in my last message, it hasn't in over a decade of websites.

Third, I don't necessarily think that currently copyrighted materials (so long as they are attentively typeset for a reasonable variety of devices) ought to be readily extractable. Piracy happens in no small part due to its ease and convenience. DRM is trivial to disable in comparison to the task of 100% validly/correctly converting PDFs. If publishers do their part for the consumer, PDFs are the ideal format. Assuming you can get over the irritation of not having control over your books that you never head prior to your eBook device, and are willing to instead just sit back and enjoy your beautiul professional quality eBook--truly the equal of your neighbour's heavy and dusty hardcover.

Good points all But let's take a look at it from the publisher's point of view. Once a book is created in ePub then the base information is always available, no matter what happens. With a PDF the base information could be lost due to error, misplacement, or any number of other everyday catastrophes (I'm talking here about the pre-press files associated with the production). It's no easy job to OCR and then typeset and whatever else has to go on before this 'wonderful' ebook is produced afresh. With an ePub, the heavy OCR work is out of the way already, and with new/modified applications this ePub can now be re-opened and maybe with a template or some other as-yet-not-invented system, the typography and layout restored.

Where PDF restricts this flow, ePub allows the flow to go on unabated. The information is always there, ready to be repurposed according to market demand and new technological advances.

Because the file format itself contains the bulk of information that is needed to repurpose the very same content, then it's a no-brainer for them to go with it.

At least that's my reasoning

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Good, because I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to understand the pros and cons of both approaches. I really don't know enough to say outright which will survive (although I do have a gut feeling that ePub or some derivative of such will eventualy become the standard).

I think ePub may become a secondary standard--but I think it will lose prestige, becoming relegated to use for user-generated and (possibly) self-ePublished stuff. Professional quality publications from publishers/companies will necessarily be PDFs.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Once a book is created in ePub then the base information is always available, no matter what happens. With a PDF the base information could be lost due to error, misplacement, or any number of other everyday catastrophes (I'm talking here about the pre-press files associated with the production). It's no easy job to OCR and then typeset and whatever else has to go on before this 'wonderful' ebook is produced afresh. With an ePub, the heavy OCR work is out of the way already, and with new/modified applications this ePub can now be re-opened and maybe with a template or some other as-yet-not-invented system, the typography and layout restored.

Granted. But I don't think the average publisher's fear of losing their production files is sufficient for them to want to back them up on their customers' devices.

I myself don't even feel compelled to release the LaTeX file (a 75 KB text file basically*) for "The Art of War" for such reasons... not even while I make the eBooks available for free. And if you take a large publisher, frankly if they ever have problems doing conversion into a new format, they'll probably offshore retyping to two different Indian or Chinese companies and (beyond in-house proofreading) compare the two copies to ensure they catch all mistakes made only by one or the other... and they'll have the book re-/newly typeset for whatever format with hardly noticeable new expense (given the moneys they burn through).

What you describe might be a compelling reason for a self-publishing author to use a readily convertible format--but I don't think it would be for a publisher.

- Ahi


* Which I could attach to the PDF, if I wanted... forever placing into every PDF downloaders hands the full production source file that generated said PDF.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

I think ePub may become a secondary standard--but I think it will lose prestige, becoming relegated to use for user-generated and (possibly) self-ePublished stuff. Professional quality publications from publishers/companies will necessarily be PDFs.



Granted. But I don't think the average publisher's fear of losing their production files is sufficient for them to want to back them up on their customers' devices.

I myself don't even feel compelled to release the LaTeX file (a 75 KB text file basically) for "The Art of War" for such reasons... not even while I make the eBooks available for free. And if you take a large publisher, frankly if they ever have problems doing conversion into a new format, they'll probably offshore retyping to two different Indian or Chinese companies and (beyond in-house proofreading) compare the two copies to ensure they catch all mistakes made only by one or the other... and they'll have the book re-/newly typeset for whatever format with hardly noticeable new expense (given the moneys they burn through).

What you describe might be a compelling reason for a self-publishing author to use a readily convertible format--but I don't think it would be for a publisher.

- Ahi

Ahh, well now you bring up an interesting point in what you said about publishers and the lengths they would go to for producing a book - outsourcing, re-typing etc. This is probably the domain of the publisher 'as is', but with a rapidly evolving e-book market, the proliferation of devices and the newly profitable re-issue of back-catalogues, the modern or evolving
publishing house will see a lot of merit in the production of ePub over PDF. If they can cut corners at any stage and maximise profits, I think they would. Imagine this 'new' publishing house (or at least evolving) and they can now re-issue thousands of books at a fraction of the cost of the pbook production (granted the books would have to go through a preliminary preperation stage). And then imagine that they can re-issue these books on a whiim (change of market, upsurge in demand etc) and the ePub becomes a goldengoose for them. No need to outsource for a new edition, no need to employ the typesetters and proofreaders and such. They can keep these ePub files (or the base XHTML) and shoot out new versions whenever they feel like it.

What I think I'm driving at is that these publishing companies, as they evolve, might lean toward the cheap data reproduction of ePub over costly re-setting of an already published PDF.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What I think I'm driving at is that these publishing companies, as they evolve, might lean toward the cheap data reproduction of ePub over costly re-setting of an already published PDF.

That would be a clear loss for the consumer, however. Format shifting to a less sophisticated format is (sometimes) simple. But you cannot, by design, so easily format shift to a more sophisticated one.

If publishers never take it on themselves to take eBooks as seriously as they do real books (and they do find the money for their backlist titles to be retypeset and reprinted on dead-tree books, so I don't see why saving a few bucks in making eBooks would make a world of a difference [particularly since unlike physical ones, eBooks have no shipping or other distribution costs]), eBooks will never be a realistic replacement for dead-tree books.

ePub, unless it starts encapsulating multiple display size and font size PDF files, will never be able to match the quality of physical books; so eBooks will either have to opt for PDF or will remain only for a nieche audience or only for typographically primitive books. In either case, for most things other than casual reading, people will find themselves stuck with paper books.

That seems to me more unlikely than the reasonable enough wholesale adoption of PDF (with, perhaps, ePub as an also supported standard to allow quick and dirty content generation for those with less sophisticated software tools or know-how).

Good discussion we are having though.

- Ahi