The Economist/Babbage blog post on paper vs. on-screen reading

[sufue]

The Economist's Babbage takes a look at reading on screens vs. paper.

For me, I've long thought it comes down to the complexity of what I am trying to read, and not the screen vs. e-ink vs. paper thing. For me, to read complex stuff, I want paper where I can really really easily flip back and forth, make notes, and have a sense of where I am in the document. Yes, I know that e-reader manufacturers have provided substitutes for these things (with varying degrees of success), but e-reading just doesn't work as well for me as paper when I'm reading, say, a textbook or a long technical paper. Now, I wonder if it's also due to the fact that I'm usually trying to "learn" when I read a textbook or technical paper, and that might happen differently in my brain with reading on a screen vs. reading on paper.

OTOH, I have not read fiction, or even most magazine or newspaper articles, on paper in many years. Except in direct sunlight, where it's simply impractical, I vastly prefer a back or front lit reader to e-ink or paper for these.

Anyway, JMTCW, and here's the link to the article...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babba...rence-engine-2

[fjtorres]

A computer screen, for instance, actively pumps streams of photons into the user’s eyes, whereas a printed page relies simply on ambient light being reflected passively from the ink and paper. Evidence suggests transmitted light is processed in a different part of the visual cortex from that handling reflected light. This may account for the tiredness people complain about after long stints of staring at a computer screen, and why passive E-Ink screens used on Kindle e-readers are preferred to conventional screens. - See more at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babba....84pLqYP4.dpuf

Not quite sure of his source but at least he offers a reasonably logical reason why some people prefer reflective displays, some prefer backlit displays, and some of us don't care.