|
So for people actually interested in the discussion rather than creating conspiracy theories not settled with the tacit statement of "none"....
Even if you reject the premise of the article- that reading habits are more controlling with respect to eyestrain than display technology- and further accept the premise that some other technology is required... the question is what features does that technology have to have in order to go mainstream?
Rather than box your desires by existing technological categories what is the feature set necessary?
Presumably the bottom line is readability [given bad habits]. Rich media, responsiveness, color, etc. are what the mainstream want on top of that, but for a reader-centric crowd, readability is first (however you get there, even if it includes better responsiveness for a better page-turning experience, etc). So better than paper in the dark, lower than reflective in bright light, and always persisting at a comfortable level of nits respective to the environment (within reason).
Looking at the feature set it seems that whatever the future is it HAS to be emissive because no reflective technology can cover that gamut of lighting conditions... so the question then turns to, "If it glows it blows... WHY?"
The eye is merely an organ that takes in light and transmits the signal via electro-chemical impulses... so what is the qualitative empirical difference between reflected light and emissive light that should cause a [non-psychosomatic] response in the reader?
Presuming an emissive display were to project a perfect hologram of a piece of paper... would that be acceptable?
|