The New Yorker hates on Kindle

[Ea]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

I have to say I agree with almost everything he said. Ebook technology is pretty poor, as is publisher support. Technology adopters often avoid too much negative criticism, afraid it will cause the public to reject a good idea. In my opinion, this leads to a bit too much complacency.

If you want to treat the written word as a form of manifest beauty in both tangible and intangible forms, ebook readers like the Kindle are pretty poor. They get words into your brain in a form a bit less painful than a bright backlit computer screen, but they don't do much more.

Ebook readers are very convenient. The adapt well to individual needs for font size. A reader device weighs a lot less than books. It's more comfortable to sit with because you don't have to hold it open (and it doesn't weight 5 pounds like the pbook I'm currently reading). Takes up less space. When you get used to all this, it goes a long way to make up for the more basic aestethics of the e-ink screen. However, printed books are far from always nicer looking than an e-book 'page'. Paperback certainly aren't.

Edit: Good article, and it adresses many of the issues that does exist. I like to compare the situation with the early www - lots of possibilities but now enough knowledge about how and why

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Ea

Ebook readers are very convenient. The adapt well to individual needs for font size. A reader device weighs a lot less than books. It's more comfortable to sit with because you don't have to hold it open (and it doesn't weight 5 pounds like the pbook I'm currently reading). Takes up less space. When you get used to all this, it goes a long way to make up for the more basic aestethics of the e-ink screen. However, printed books are far from always nicer looking than an e-book 'page'. Paperback certainly aren't.

Edit: Good article, and it adresses many of the issues that does exist. I like to compare the situation with the early www - lots of possibilities but now enough knowledge about how and why

Sadly even my cheap Pratchett paperbacks with mediocre paper and uneven ink density are a dream to read compared to any e-ink device I've seen. I certainly can see the benefits of readers (if I couldn't see benefit, I'd be printing my own personal tomes rather than wasting it on ebooks and a reader). You can use any language you like to try to marginalize the screen quality and response issues, and many people do exactly that. And perhaps there are extremely conservative folks out there who will never be satisfied with anything that requires electricity or offers intangible pages.

Perhaps I can satiate myself by imagining the future while trying to ignore the present, or by reveling in features like the mp3 player and image viewer that make the reading experience so much more enjoyable, or the text enlargement that will enable my vision-impaired friends to read over my shoulder when I am not reading in the smallest fonts possible. Reminding myself that it's somewhat portable (though not especially durable or disposable if it comes to that) doesn't always convince me.

It's certainly not a technology for everyone, and I'm right on the threshold. I'm sure there are quite a few people in a similar position who joined this site to get some justification in ownership (either by impulse or by careful, deliberate purchase), and found themselves wanting (either by file formats, ownership rights, device technology, or publisher support).

Were I truly unhappy, I would simply offload my player on some poor schmuck at a bit of a loss and stop posting criticisms. I may be critical, but I'm not irrational enough to bind myself to a device I hate simply to have something to complain about.

One thing I am very happy about it is that unlike some other communities, criticism here is rarely met with complete fanboy/girlism towards a given product or brand. That's refreshing.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by ascherjim

I prefer and use the IBOOKN font, one of the three offered in the standard firmware (the others being "times" and "arial" -- both quite clear also) and I could load on other fonts than these if I wanted.

My preferred format is Mobibook, and I convert all my titles to that format using Calibre. I choose 19pt type, with full page justification.

All of these things would quite objectively qualify as "hideous from a typographic perspective". Which, of course, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with your preference. If you find it ideal, good for you.

But it seems like odd "bait" to use in response to a post that contained the phrase "hideous from a typographic perspective".

- Ahi

[Abecedary]

The only time I find myself noticing the fuzziness/lowish resolution of my 505 is when I'm outside reading in direct sunlight. When I'm on the covered porch, in my reading chair, in bed, I tend not to notice it at all. But yes, in direct sunlight, it does take on the qualities of a slightly fuzzed-out photocopy. And I think I finally found my ideal typeface for most epubs, but I need to read another book or two with it first.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

The only time I find myself noticing the fuzziness/lowish resolution of my 505 is when I'm outside reading in direct sunlight. When I'm on the covered porch, in my reading chair, in bed, I tend not to notice it at all. But yes, in direct sunlight, it does take on the qualities of a slightly fuzzed-out photocopy. And I think I finally found my ideal typeface for most epubs, but I need to read another book or two with it first.

I notice the screen under most conditions, but I'm definitely with you on the point of it being at its most obvious under broad sunlight conditions. It causes an odd behavior in me: the train I take to work has a pretty unpleasant fluorescent tube arrangement along with the bright windows. When I am seated next to the window, I tend to tilt my reader away from the window so it reflects the interior light, which paradoxically improves the viewing. With paper, the habit is the opposite; I savour more full-spectrum illumination and dislike cheap fluorescent tubing.

As for typefaces...I am lucky to have a fairly good supply available to me, but few really stood out as winners for my viewing size (8-10pt range). Some of the Adobe Opticals sets include a caption size which works somewhat well for this, and the best choices I have are Arno Pro Caption and Chaparral Caption, though I'm trying out Warnock Pro Caption also and it's not too bad. FF Avance is highly readable and dark even at pretty small sizes, but I don't care for it that much.

If you've found anything interesting, be sure to let us know

[Abecedary]

BTW, Nicholson Baker is doing a live chat in response to this article on the newyorker.com website right now (3-4pm EDT). I'm sure the chat transcript will be available for reading after it's done, too.

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

As for typefaces...I am lucky to have a fairly good supply available to me, but few really stood out as winners for my viewing size (8-10pt range). Some of the Adobe Opticals sets include a caption size which works somewhat well for this, and the best choices I have are Arno Pro Caption and Chaparral Caption, though I'm trying out Warnock Pro Caption also and it's not too bad. FF Avance is highly readable and dark even at pretty small sizes, but I don't care for it that much.

If you've found anything interesting, be sure to let us know

The one I've been enjoying so far is H&FJ's Sentinel. It's a slab serif with a good x-height and only modest modulation in stroke width (and six weights--I've been using Book and Semibold, but I want to try a book using Light for the body text). I don't want to mess around with modifying stylesheets too much, so I've been on the lookout for something that works well (for me) at whatever point size the 505 defaults to when the size is undeclared (seems to be 9-10pt). My only issue with it is that since the 505 doesn't use ligatures there are certain character combinations ('fl' and 'fi' mostly) that leave a tiny "dark spot" on the page. But minor coloration issues aside, I've been very pleased with it.

[LDBoblo]

Nice font. I've had varying luck with slab serifs in body text readability, though on average they're a much stronger choice than most standard serif options. I noticed that Minion and Sabon, two fonts I'm fond of for general use, don't display well at all on the reader. I can't afford to drop coin on new fonts at the moment, but I would really like to try out FF Milo Serif to see how it plays. Anywho, I'm quite happy with Arno and Chaparral, and I have been playing with the OT ligatures in some of my custom pdfs with Warnock and Arno. Chaparral Pro seems to be much more readable to me than Caecilia or other similar faces, so I'm pretty happy with that for a slightly more contemporary typeset.

Nice to see other people are still playing around with fonts though. It adds a dimension of toy personalization that satisfies beyond just displaying text.

[sassanik]

Has he been reading better quality paperbacks than I have? It seems to me that my Cool-er eink screen is MUCH more clear and crisp than the standard print on the paperbacks I usually get.

My Cool-er has been mistaken for a Kindle a number of times.

My biggest reason for my recommending a reader to everyone is that if you are not a big reader, as in some one who reads one book a month ereaders are too expensive for the casual reader, IMO.


Amy

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by sassanik

Has he been reading better quality paperbacks than I have? It seems to me that my Cool-er eink screen is MUCH more clear and crisp than the standard print on the paperbacks I usually get.

Do you normally read trade paperbacks or mass market paperbacks? If mass market, then yes, an e-ink screen will usually be an improvement. If trade paperback, then the e-ink is a slight step down (IMHO, but it's a step down I'm willing to live with). That's because many mass market paperbacks use very low quality paper and ink whereas trade paperbacks tend to use slightly heavier stock and higher quality ink. Of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule, but rather a general one.

[fugazied]

Well most of the articles in the new yorker read like a harsh critique with tongue in cheek. They hate on a lot of stuff and only love two or three things in the world.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

Do you normally read trade paperbacks or mass market paperbacks? If mass market, then yes, an e-ink screen will usually be an improvement. If trade paperback, then the e-ink is a slight step down (IMHO, but it's a step down I'm willing to live with). That's because many mass market paperbacks use very low quality paper and ink whereas trade paperbacks tend to use slightly heavier stock and higher quality ink. Of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule, but rather a general one.

Trade paperbacks are usually the same as the hardback, same print and paper, just without the hard binding - and released at the same time as the hardback (I assume?)

I always assume if someone says "paperback" then they mean the mass-market version, it's the default. It's confusing in English when they are both called paperback.

[sassanik]

Originally Posted by Abecedary

Do you normally read trade paperbacks or mass market paperbacks? If mass market, then yes, an e-ink screen will usually be an improvement. If trade paperback, then the e-ink is a slight step down (IMHO, but it's a step down I'm willing to live with). That's because many mass market paperbacks use very low quality paper and ink whereas trade paperbacks tend to use slightly heavier stock and higher quality ink. Of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule, but rather a general one.

I do read mostly mass market paperbacks, not trade paperbacks. So that could be it.


Amy

[ascherjim]

Originally Posted by ascherjim

One would think (or expect) EInk screens to be the same, no matter which device they're mounted on. However, i find that on my BeBook the screen appears fairly white with nice dark (black) clear type. I prefer and use the IBOOKN font, one of the three offered in the standard firmware (the others being "times" and "arial" -- both quite clear also) and I could load on other fonts than these if I wanted.

My preferred format is Mobibook, and I convert all my titles to that format using Calibre. I choose 19pt type, with full page justification.

With this reader I find my reading is almost always better and more satisfying than reading paper.

My earlier posting (above) can be inferred to question The New Yorker's finding of the Kindle EInk screen too "gray" for comfortable reading. As I earlier stated, I had not found this to be so. My wife and I are now in London (from Seattle) visiting our daughter and granddaughter, and I proudly showed my BeBook to my daughter, thinking it might interest her, she being an avid book reader. She rejected it, finding the screen too gray! Everything's very much "in the eye of the beholder."

[sparky750]

I'm brand new to ereaders having only bought my 505 on friday, I've found it slightly worse than paper to read however the convenience more than makes up for it.
I work offshore on oil rigs an awful lot and the weight restriction on the helicopters is normally 10kg, due to the nature of my job i can spend a lot of time sat around reading however due to weight 2 paperbacks is my limit Which dependant on the job only last about 4 days into a 2-3 week trip I fly off again on thursday and my reader will be loaded up ready to go. I wish there where more titles available however i'll take what i can get right now and still buy real books when i can't find the ebook version. So yes readers aren't perfect but they solve a massive problem for me and make the pleasure of reading more accessible plus i'm not waiting for deliveries of books