Quote:
Originally Posted by Demas
It outpaces the trial with respect to long term effects which is the only thing we care about (if it damages, then there's concern- but it's mitigated by the fact the tech gets outmoded in 5-10 years). Eyestrain is fully understood... NO expert says, "It's a mystery, we think virgin sacrifices are involved."... moreover, understood to be TEMPORARY (like scalding your mouth), so a trial is meaningless when the cure isn't a different display but periodic rest/good habits. By the time you take out the variables of behavior, equivalent light sources and ambient lightning, etc. you reach the completely unsurprising result that light is light.
There might be some value in measuring people's differing habits between the two, but it's not like that's a mystery either. Incidentally, the world record speed reading holders accomplished their fastest feats on LCDs.
|
You keep saying things aren't a mystery, but you provide no citations to scientific sources.
Clinical trials are not limited to long term issues. Migraines are temporary, but there's plenty of current science (not to mention pharmacology) pertaining to it. The trial could test the effects of different display technologies on readers' habits and their eye strain levels with each. That more natural setting would be more applicable than artificially holding the habits as a constant. Then study could go into why each technology encourages different habits and how the technologies can be adjusted to encourage good habits. You mention taking out the variables of "equivalent light sources" and "ambient lighting". My previous questions were about how equivalent these light sources (reflective vs. emissive) really are!