[Demas]

Originally Posted by MikeRo

Note exactly what Dr. Meredith says: "...we need to adjust our bodies to our computer screens, rather than the screens adjusting to us." Why should I adjust my body to read on a screen when there already exists a solution that works for me?

I think what you're taking for granted is that even with reflective "tech", let's just use paper for example, you adjust your body to the "display technology" to suit you because you have no other choice. (It's not like paper has a dial, you have to adjust its angle your posture, etc. to get optimal lighting) The only difference between adjusting the brightness on emissive technology and tilting the paper just so for the right lighting is that the latter is more intuitive because its how we see everything.

That's part of the reason clinical trials would be moot because the issues don't lie in variations in the display tech- which is fully understood- but in reading habits which would be constrained or controlled for a meaningful study and which all experts agree is dispositive/controlling. You force people to blink, look away, use eyedrops, and receive the exact same level of nits and you get the unsurprising result that light is light.

Which brings up another point: Good enough technology. . . . For me, my E-ink device is good enough for my purposes.

Spot on and simultaneously why e-ink based devices are niche (long form reading primarily, luxury item with long battery life... for people who live in houses with plenty of access to electricity and who can afford books and the time to read long form), but still market viable for now. Nothing has the same form factor, battery life, and functionality combined, but tech is getting closer.

Originally Posted by badbob001

I wanted to have a discussion about good displays for reading

Without a stacked deck the only issues are habits and pattern recognition... if your habits are poor, eyestrain (which isn't equivalent to eye damage, mind you) occurs with any device and with good habits, are largely moot. With respect to pattern recognition, LCD has better fidelity (arguably moot of e-ink is "good enough"), but e-ink has more comfortable texture (which matters only psychosomatically and for viewing angles; again the latter moot with good habits). In other words, barring an unexamined assumption that paper is the gold standard, there's no particular advantage to e-ink with respect to eyestrain.

Although we could take a step back and see if paper is all that great. The AOA reports that ANY close-up work results in a proclivity for near-sightedness [that is, real, lifetime chronic eye damage as opposed to mere temporary eyestrain] and cites book reading specifically. And just broadly speaking, those who work with paper 18 hours a day tend to have worse eyesight than those who work with screens 18 hours a day... but again, this relates to behavior. The person working with a screen likely has artificial and back lighting the entire period whereas the paper reader shifts from dawn to noon to dusk and perhaps engages in bad ambient lighting behavior when shifting from daylight to artificial lighting... so the controlling factor is more behavior than display tech.

I wonder how do the contrast levels of e-ink and an unback-lit pixelqi display compare in various outdoor and indoor lighting conditions?

In exchange for responsiveness, video, color hinting, 256 shades, higher DPI, and high refresh... essentially, "good enough". YouTube has hidef video of the latest off-the line (no longer just prototypes) units for show in various lighting conditions from CES '10. They also have direct Kindle comparisons but those are older (June '09) videos using prototype displays (<10 produced in a lot) with admitted issues. You can "see" for yourself.

Alternatively wait for MWC (Mobile World Conference) info or the products themselves (which can still be improved and iterated... the electronics alone can reduce their draw from 0.5 watts to 0.1 watts if there wasn't such a rush to market).

And for Dawn

Originally Posted by PopSci Feature reaffirming actual history

OLPC had one undeniable effect: It led directly to the advent of the small, stripped-down, inexpensive “netbook,” a sector that now makes up about 20 percent of all laptop sales. Once the nonprofit showed that it could build a compact, functional laptop for less than $200, nearly every other computer maker followed suit, and the gadget-buying public snatched them up. Since its debut in 2007, OLPC has delivered more than a million computers.