|
These complaints could be filed against computer monitors, too:
The typeface is a computerized version of Courier and pleasingly readable, though when you blow it up to the largest of three available sizes, some awkward spaces and line breaks sometimes turn up. The type, which really does look like ink on paper, is at once the Reader’s second-best feature and a slightly disconcerting one, because every book looks exactly the same. ...
As you read along, moreover, it’s hard to know exactly where you are in a book. A little icon at the bottom of the screen tells you that you’re on Page 312 of 716 or whatever, but that’s not nearly as satisfying as being able to eyeball how many pages you have left, or even to feel your progress with your fingers. You can’t skim or flip through easily, though the Reader does have a bookmark feature, nor can you search or make notes. The whole experience is a little like floating through cyberspace.
The Reader is not a book, but a book is not a magazine, and a magazine is not a newspaper. Each medium provides a reading experience, but the reading experience varies. The laments he lists would also apply to newspapers. Do you eyeball your progress through a newspaper? (No, because it's a collection of articles, with the articles broken and scattered throughout.)
|