Readability quotient

[frankrec]

Why do ebook reader reviews rarely give a good indication of how good the readability quotient of the reader is. Many of us buy ereaders to read and wish only to have a defined measure of text clarity. The contast figure alone does not that as it is greatly impacted by the various layers and the screen type. I do not need the ability for my ereader use a pen, I just need to read text and have text displayed clearly. From the reviews I should be able to tell if a kobo forma or a kindle Voyager has a better display.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by frankrec

Why do ebook reader reviews rarely give a good indication of how good the readability quotient of the reader is.

When I typed "readability quotient" into my browser-bar, the first suggestion was a link to Mobileread--to this very thread, in fact. So I'm guessing that right there is a really big part of why device reviews don't include info about the readability quotient.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

When I typed "readability quotient" into my browser-bar, the first suggestion was a link to Mobileread--to this very thread, in fact. So I'm guessing that right there is a really big part of why device reviews don't include info about the readability quotient.

Yeah...I've never heard of that particular metric either in relation to e-readers.

Shari

[HarryT]

Can you enlighten us, Frank, about how it’s defined? I’ve never heard of it, either.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by frankrec

Why do ebook reader reviews rarely give a good indication of how good the readability quotient of the reader is. Many of us buy ereaders to read and wish only to have a defined measure of text clarity. The contast figure alone does not that as it is greatly impacted by the various layers and the screen type. I do not need the ability for my ereader use a pen, I just need to read text and have text displayed clearly. From the reviews I should be able to tell if a kobo forma or a kindle Voyager has a better display.

I suppose I should open by asking what the heck you mean by a readability quotient. The ones I'm familiar with such as the Flesch reading ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level have little to do the with physical media and much to do with sentence structure, sentence length and word choice. Outside of K-12 education, no one seems to pay much attention to those results.

One possible reason that ereaders don't give readability quotient has nothing to do with text clarity or any attribute of an ereader. Use short sentences and words and you get an excellent readability quotient. Use longer sentences, longer words and suffer a low readability quotient. Most ereaders can vary the font, font size, line height, line length (varying the margins), etc. giving those items pretty much negligible relevance when it comes to ereaders.

A while back, just for the heck of it, I ran Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet through a version of the Flesch reading-ease test. It came up with a score of 21. I ran one of the old Dick and Jane books through the same test, it came up with a score of 98 (it was a pain typing those sentences). Which would I rather read?

I also ran one (or was it two? ) sentence from David Edding's The Seeress of Kell through the test. Score was 17. Admittedly, the sentence was spoken by a Mimbrate knight and as one comment in the book: "I spent some time at Vo Mimbre," Garion told him. "You can pick up their speech after a while. About the only problem with it is that the sentences are so involved that you sometimes lose track of what you’re saying before you get to the bottom end of it."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you enlighten us, Frank, about how it’s defined? I’ve never heard of it, either.

Try this:

https://support.office.com/en-us/art...3-f7fc3c8b3fd2

There are several different readability tests and websites out there.
(Like this example: https://www.online-utility.org/engli...nd_improve.jsp)

Mostly they scan text and internally tally a writer's propensity to use long sentences or paragraphs, elliptical writing, professional jargon, etc. From that it assigns an average readability score, typically in terms of reader's age or educational level.

The value is subjective but it is occasionally useful in technical writing.
Fiction?
Doubtful.
Which probably explains why ebook readers, which are primarily aimed at fiction buyers, ignore the tests.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I also ran one (or was it two? ) sentence from David Edding's The Seeress of Kell through the test. Score was 17. Admittedly, the sentence was spoken by a Mimbrate knight and as one comment in the book: "I spent some time at Vo Mimbre," Garion told him. "You can pick up their speech after a while. About the only problem with it is that the sentences are so involved that you sometimes lose track of what you’re saying before you get to the bottom end of it."

OT

Are Belgariad and Malloreon available as ebooks (US)? I remember I used to have those on my FictionWise wishlist (back when I was a poor college student). Alas, I haven't been able to find them on Kindle or Kobo. I'd love to re-read those (Belgariad more than Malloreon).

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

OT

Are Belgariad and Malloreon available as ebooks (US)? I remember I used to have those on my FictionWise wishlist (back when I was a poor college student). Alas, I haven't been able to find them on Kindle or Kobo. I'd love to re-read those (Belgariad more than Malloreon).

I picked up the Belgariad and Malloreon when they were available as ebooks in Canada. For some reason, they disappeared as ebooks though Amazon and Kobo still show them available as audio books.

[frankrec]

That's what I'm complaining about. There should be a metric that would represent the quality and clarity of the displays text. I'm suggesting a name of "readability quotient", but it can be named however the industry see fit.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by frankrec

That's what I'm complaining about. There should be a metric that would represent the quality and clarity of the displays text. I'm suggesting a name of "readability quotient", but it can be named however the industry see fit.

Given how subjective most people are about their ereading experiences, it would be fun to try to generate objective tests. Not to mention that since the eInk screens are manufactured by one company, there is little difference to be seen.

However, if you want to fund the quest to generate that set of objective tests, go ahead and have fun.

Please, think of some other name that is not already taken.

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by frankrec

There should be a metric that would represent the quality and clarity of the displays text. I'm suggesting a name of "readability quotient", but it can be named however the industry see fit.

It would be difficult to get consensus on what defines the 'quality and clarity' of text on a screen. You only have to read these forums to see that opinions vary wildly. You might get agreement that Carta eink is "better" than not-Carta eink but not much more specific than that.

Not to mention that the font (face, size, weight, serif/sans-serif) used to display text will affect individual perception. Light level and colour also add new variables.

[barryem]

I agree that it would be difficult to define a readability quotient and I also doubt there's much motivation for one. There are differences in how good a page looks on various devices but they're very small differences. At least that's true with the newer devices.

I have what might be the least sharp, even screen on my original Kobo Aura. It was one of the first touch screen readers, maybe THE first, I don't recall. And the various coatings and layers make the screen very uneven and un-sharp. When they first came out there was a lot of comment on that fact.

I also have what might be one of the sharpest and most even screens with the best contrast, the 6" Nook Glowlight 3. When I put these side by side the difference is glaring. You can't help but notice it. And yet, reading a book on either one is just fine. The fact is that both are better reading surfaces than the used Paperbacks I used to read, often yellowed and sometimes blotchy.

When you're comparing things that are just about perfect with things that are pretty close to perfect it's just hard to care all that much.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

If I can read the text without squinting (in the font-size I prefer), then the screen is fairly perfect. If the text gets any crisper, I'd expect to be able to read it without even looking directly at it.

"These fonts go to eleven."

[Ripplinger]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

It would be difficult to get consensus on what defines the 'quality and clarity' of text on a screen. You only have to read these forums to see that opinions vary wildly. You might get agreement that Carta eink is "better" than not-Carta eink but not much more specific than that.

Not to mention that the font (face, size, weight, serif/sans-serif) used to display text will affect individual perception. Light level and colour also add new variables.

This is pretty much my thoughts on it as well. Fonts and font weight make a HUGE difference for me. Before Kindles let you add your own fonts and adjust font weight, the text always just looked washed out and gray to me. Sure, I could read it, but it wasn't very enjoyable. So the Kindles were a big disappointment to me. They are much better now that they allow you to add your own fonts and adjust the weight.

I went from a Sony PRS-350 to Kobo Glo and then Kobo Glo HD. All of those let you add your own fonts and adjust font weight. I can even use all bold fonts if I choose just by swapping names around. And that makes all the difference in the world for my eyesight. Adjusting the front light on the readers helps the contrast for me quite a bit too.

Of course, that's for my crappy eyesight. Probably millions of people never had problems with Kindles. How sharp or dark text appears on a screen is going to be very subjective for each individual reader. I don't see a way to actually measure that. If you can't see a reader locally before buying it, make sure you can return it if the text on the screen is not what you expect or to your liking.

[HarryT]

There is also the fact that different sizes and types of screens are “better” for different types of material. A mono 6” eInk screen is great for reading fiction, but it’s a poor choice for PDFs formatted for an A4 or Letter page. A 10” screen is better than a 6” in terms of the amount of content displayed, but it falls down in terms of portability. Assigning objective measures to these factors isn’t possible because different readers have different priorities.