Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I think is is clear that in BOTH those that answered Yes and those that answered No there are a range of reasons why.
|
Of course there are. Never suggested otherwise. My entire point is that there is no objective "Better for Reading™" or "Worse for Reading™". It's just that over the years, it's invariably some of the "Better for Reading™" crowd that seem to go to that "bright lights shining in your face" well over and over again. If the issue is not about intensity (as many here now seem to be suggesting) then why is intensity always the mantra?
I'm not exchanging pseudo science with anything. The only thing science-related I've claimed is that, lumen for lumen, the eye cannot differentiate between indirect and direct lighting. That's not pseudo science. You want to say that's not the only issue? Fine. I'll listen. But while we're doing that talking, another "Better for Reading™" proponent will join the fray (who hasn't read the entire thread) to proudly proclaim the eink is better because it's not shining bright lights directly in your face.
Again: I'm perfectly fine with people saying "I prefer eink", or "LCD gives me headaches", or "small screens don't show enough text", or anything else regarding their personal preferences/experiences that stops short of a Better/Worse for Reading™ proclamation.