Can technology improve the reading experience?

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I worked in support in the past. I've encountered this stuff daily. For years.

A lot of "ID 10-T" errors??

[Kretzer]

With reading in the narrow sense - focussing on text itself - there is only so much you can improve. But it does help to get the optimal conditions: Font size, layout, light, weight if the thing you are holding ...
If you get older, you do appreciate being able to simply increase text size and brighten the whole thing - there is a reason why I hardly read paper books at night anymore.

There is a new German study that found elderly people actually read more easily on tablets. Even if they do not feel reading easier subjectively, the study shows less brain effort with more legible text (mostly it's the higher contrast that does it). There is a lengthy article in English explaining the results.

As to the wider reading experience, there is a lot technology can do: Getting new materials, additional informations, annotations, definitions ... I really doappreciate the ability to look up a word with one tap. And yes, I did catch myself trying to this on paper

[Katsunami]

I've read a book today.

A real one, I mean. Even with all the advantages the ereader has (size, lighting, custom fonts...) it misses one perk: it actually isn't a book. For the sheer experience of reading a book, nothing beats a book. Just like playing a midi-keyboard with virtual instruments will never beat the experience of playing an actual organ or piano.

[gridlewak]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I've read a book today.

A real one, I mean. Even with all the advantages the ereader has (size, lighting, custom fonts...) it misses one perk: it actually isn't a book. For the sheer experience of reading a book, nothing beats a book. Just like playing a midi-keyboard with virtual instruments will never beat the experience of playing an actual organ or piano.

+1 Give me a proper book any day.

Though, I will say that e-readers have made it possible for me to read some of the older books I found on archive.org and other places that, because of their age/rarity, etc., I might never have had the chance to read.

[Katsunami]

Even if I should use my ereader to only read the free classics I can get at various sites, then it will have paid multiple times for itself.

[derangedhermit]

I think people here underestimate the power of the "cosmetic" improvements to movies to attract and grow a consumer base. Natural, since you guys are readers...but still, the opinion remains. People do find powerful sound effects, surround sound, and animation that appears at lest close to "reality" (or not close, e.g. anime) to be reasons to spend their entertainment money.

Reading engages only the mind - not even vision as a sensory input, really. The full range of effects that can engage vision, hearing, touch (or other physical effects) are powerful additions. Taste and smell are not yet added, but smell is pretty much a given; I'm not sure about taste.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by derangedhermit

I think people here underestimate the power of the "cosmetic" improvements to movies to attract and grow a consumer base. Natural, since you guys are readers...but still, the opinion remains. People do find powerful sound effects, surround sound, and animation that appears at lest close to "reality" (or not close, e.g. anime) to be reasons to spend their entertainment money.

The question isn't whether technology can improve entertainment but whether it can improve reading. Animations, music, sound effects, and other effects (games you can play like the ones the characters are doing? Scratch-n-sniff cards?) can indeed enhance the experience of the story for many people, but that's not the same as improving reading.

Modern makeup, sound and lighting technology and did improve stage plays, but not by turning them into movies.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by derangedhermit

I think people here underestimate the power of the "cosmetic" improvements to movies to attract and grow a consumer base. Natural, since you guys are readers...but still, the opinion remains. People do find powerful sound effects, surround sound, and animation that appears at lest close to "reality" (or not close, e.g. anime) to be reasons to spend their entertainment money.

Reading engages only the mind - not even vision as a sensory input, really. The full range of effects that can engage vision, hearing, touch (or other physical effects) are powerful additions. Taste and smell are not yet added, but smell is pretty much a given; I'm not sure about taste.

The basic idea behind movies 'persistance of vision' hasn't changed since the 1st movies back in the 1890's though the special effects have improved somewhat. Likewise reading is reading no matter what the media (paper, e-ink, etc). At least that's my own opinion.

[Katsunami]

With regard to movies vs. reading: why can so many not watch a 2 hour movie (or longer) without starting too fidget around? Or, are these people the same as the ones who don't have patience for books?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

With regard to movies vs. reading: why can so many not watch a 2 hour movie (or longer) without starting too fidget around? Or, are these people the same as the ones who don't have patience for books?

It's pacing and control.
Books you read at your own pace. You can take a bathroom break, raid the fridge, check on the oh-too-quiet kids, and then return right where you were.
The theater experience? You're not in control: the thing streams by whether you're paying attention or not and you paid good money so you'd better be paying attention.
Very different experiences.

If anything, one could argue movie viewing is moving closer to book reading with the increasing popularity of home movie viewing. At home you don't have to deal with the bored kids chattering behind you (or you *can* deal, if they do it) plus you have control: as in pause, rewind, fast-forward.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's pacing and control.
Books you read at your own pace. You can take a bathroom break, raid the fridge, check on the oh-too-quiet kids, and then return right where you were.
The theater experience? You're not in control: the thing streams by whether you're paying attention or not and you paid good money so you'd better be paying attention.
Very different experiences.

If anything, one could argue movie viewing is moving closer to book reading with the increasing popularity of home movie viewing. At home you don't have to deal with the bored kids chattering behind you (or you *can* deal, if they do it) plus you have control: as in pause, rewind, fast-forward.

A couple hours is a long time to really pay attention. A movie is very linear, it's here one minute, then it's gone. You don't get time to mull over what you saw, and if weren't paying attention, you might miss key moments.

Home video does let you pause and go back, so you do have more control, but it is clumsy compared to going back and checking something in a book.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

A real one, I mean. Even with all the advantages the ereader has (size, lighting, custom fonts...) it misses one perk: it actually isn't a book. For the sheer experience of reading a book, nothing beats a book. Just like playing a midi-keyboard with virtual instruments will never beat the experience of playing an actual organ or piano.

There is a book, in the physical sense, and there is a book in the metaphysical sense. It's a bit like the painting of a cigar entitled "This is not a cigar." It's not a cigar, it's some paint smeared on a canvas. What is a book, exactly? Is it the pages with ink on them, or is it the ideas contained therein, the words and images that communicate from the writer to the reader? In other words, are we looking at the experience of reading, or the results of reading?

I recently read "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood on my Kindle eInk reader. And now that I'm done with it, can you really argue that my experience of reading the book on printed paper would in any substantive way be different from reading it on my Kindle? Are the ideas and descriptions and images not in my head in the same way? I would argue that for any measurement that matters, the ultimate goal of a book is achieved regardless of whether you had a printed page or a screen in front of you.

However, I find that I vastly prefer reading on my Kindle. I read faster (strange, but true.) My chess books lay flat and I don't lose my place if I set it down to move pieces on the board. It's easy for me to carry books when I'm out and about, and to carry a "spare" in the event I finish one while I'm away from home. There is actually less glare on the Kindle than on many of my printed books. I can choose a font size that is comfortable for me. And my hands and arms do not get tired holding a 1,000 page book for long periods of time because my Kindle is light no matter how hefty the reading material. I don't need to use extreme care with borrowed books, because I can't damage them with careless page turns, nor am I distracted by other's carelessness. Food smudges clean off the bezel easily, so I can read while eating without fear.

Now, as a musician, I can say that you are correct when it comes to real instruments vs the virtual ones. The experience is not the same, but that is because we're creating something - a performance, even if the audience is only ourselves. With a book, we aren't the creator, we're the listener, and for us, it doesn't matter if they used MIDI, oversampling, or a real instrument. If our ears cannot detect the difference, it doesn't matter how it was done.

If I were to take your analogy with eBooks to their logical extreme, then it follows that real authors should only write longhand, because anything else takes away from the experience of writing a book. Computers with word processors, spell check and grammar check take away from the creation of the book, and we should go back to a Gutenberg press with real metal letters pressing ink onto the pages (or perhaps even further, to a room full of scribes, painstakingly copying each letter, then the pages handed over to a bookbinder.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sregener

There is a book, in the physical sense, and there is a book in the metaphysical sense. It's a bit like the painting of a cigar entitled "This is not a cigar."

I think you mean a pipe, as in Magritte's famous painting:

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think you mean a pipe, as in Magritte's famous painting:

Well, I'll be. To misquote Freud: Sometimes a cigar isn't even a cigar!