MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Ebook reader survey on preferred format(s)

Darqref · 05-22-2009, 02:21 AM

@ahi

You've pretty strongly defended PDF for what you call it's typographic quality, but I think my disagreement would largely amount to a combination of personal preference and semantic terminology.

You can correctly describe a PDF as having precision of intended design - fonts of specific parts, placement of items on the page, etc. For it to acheive *quality* it must, *MUST*, get through the filter of my eyes. And sometimes my eyes prefer a larger font. For other readers, it may be more a requirement than a preference. If the pdf, for whatever page size used, has a font that is too small, it needs to be able to be made larger. And for that to happen for a fixed size screen, it must reflow. If you make me merely magnify it, you effectively cut my battery in half or worse, due to the extra page turns.

It's not that I need or want a copy of the file that has been typeset for my eyes - it must support me *changing* that typeset, depending on how I feel at the moment. For this very specific reason, when I read fiction I want a reflow-able format. If I can't get that, then the value of my ebook reader is lower, when compared to a dead-tree book.

And for those who predict less paper: I keep thinking about an SF trilogy by Roger MacBride Allen, which presents a future including extensive space travel over centuries. The culture described in these books make the point that while electronic versions of knowledge are very portable and cheap to distribute, they are also capable of being corrupted. For that reason, original versions of textual knowledge are ALWAYS kept in printed form, because the printed form can be stored for long periods (and the description of the massive satellite where the central library stacks are kept makes me cringe).

05-22-2009, 02:21 AM	#89
Darqref space cadet Posts: 338 Karma: 2999999 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Seattle area Device: Rocket PRO, gen3, Pocketbook360	@ahi You've pretty strongly defended PDF for what you call it's typographic quality, but I think my disagreement would largely amount to a combination of personal preference and semantic terminology. You can correctly describe a PDF as having precision of intended design - fonts of specific parts, placement of items on the page, etc. For it to acheive quality it must, MUST, get through the filter of my eyes. And sometimes my eyes prefer a larger font. For other readers, it may be more a requirement than a preference. If the pdf, for whatever page size used, has a font that is too small, it needs to be able to be made larger. And for that to happen for a fixed size screen, it must reflow. If you make me merely magnify it, you effectively cut my battery in half or worse, due to the extra page turns. It's not that I need or want a copy of the file that has been typeset for my eyes - it must support me changing that typeset, depending on how I feel at the moment. For this very specific reason, when I read fiction I want a reflow-able format. If I can't get that, then the value of my ebook reader is lower, when compared to a dead-tree book. And for those who predict less paper: I keep thinking about an SF trilogy by Roger MacBride Allen, which presents a future including extensive space travel over centuries. The culture described in these books make the point that while electronic versions of knowledge are very portable and cheap to distribute, they are also capable of being corrupted. For that reason, original versions of textual knowledge are ALWAYS kept in printed form, because the printed form can be stored for long periods (and the description of the massive satellite where the central library stacks are kept makes me cringe).