Why publishers format ebooks differently than paper books?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by meeera

Yes, the majority of ebook formats should be as fungible as possible. (Obviously, this is not "endless". There are limits. See below.) Lots and lots of us are reading ebooks mostly or partly because of the flexibility in layout and display. When people who think they know our eyes/brain function and aesthetic preferences better than we do elect to do a whole lot of unnecessary hard-coding, it's irritating and can be frankly disrespectful to the customer.

Well, in most cases people do not know what is best for reading. People for example usually do not notice that it is hard to read with lines that are longer than around 60 characters.

The typographical rules of thumb are there for a reason. It is to make it easier to read. It is not there to allow people to read in a sub-optimal way.

[Dngrsone]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And let me tell you, before you all jump on me about how sucky typos are, and how bad some of those Indie books are, etc.: this is an unintended consequence of that mindset. I see this nonsense all the time on the KDP forums, with authors asking "how to notify their buyers" that they've uploaded changed manuscript #9 billion, because they think it is OKAY to do that. This idea, that the books are constantly fungible, constantly changeable, constantly update-able, has led to an entire world of authors who think it's OK to put a book up that is not finished, isn't ready, isn't suitable for primetime, because "it can be fixed later." So not only is this "fix-it" mindset a disservice to real publishers, but it's a disservice to the READERS, too, because you now have created a culture of authors who think that they can just fix whatever you find, while you freely crowdsource the editing and proofing that they should have had long before they pushed the "save and publish" button in the FIRST place.


Hitch

Ah, yes-- this is a reflection of the software industry's modern take on software publishing-- why pay someone to beta-test your product when the public will do it for you, for free?

I agree, that formatting, spelling, grammatical errors &etc were around in print-books. I must admit that my esteem for an author goes south pretty quick when I find a glaring error within the first few pages. Even though I know it is usually not the wrriter's fault, but rather the publisher's.

I can recall one straight-to-paperback book where there was a a tangled-up mess of paragraph that took me hours to interpret-- a pretty strong author in his field, and far from his first novel (actually, I think it was the fourth in a series). I was able to remedy that in my eBook version, so next time I read it, things will go so much more smoothly through that section.

I don't always fix every error I find... I reserve that side of my OCD for books I know I will read again. It's just too much work and impairs my enjoyment of the read even more (well, again, depending...) than trying to just ignore the ugly.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, Meera:...<snip really long rant telling us just how uncultured we are because we want to be able to read our ebooks in the way it is most comfortable for our eyes>
...Hitch

You make many points here, but a lot of them boil down to "The layout couldn't be changed in a print book, so why should it be able to be changed in an ebook?"

For me, I want it changed because that's one of the reasons I read ebooks instead of paper books. Ebooks are easier on my eyes, mostly because I can change the font size and style. When books are formatted as you suggest, enlarging the font can make the layout almost unreadable, especially with fully justified text. You keep dismissing the statements of the people who say these things, saying that because we couldn't change it in print books we shouldn't expect to be able to in ebooks. What I'm telling you is that there are a large number of people who read ebooks because most print books are not comfortable for them to read.

If there is a design element that is changed to make large print books more readable, why would you NOT include that change in ebooks, since there are so many people who will change the font to a large size?

Shari

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

Ah, yes-- this is a reflection of the software industry's modern take on software publishing-- why pay someone to beta-test your product when the public will do it for you, for free?

Ah Yes
The 'That is not a Bug fix'.
That is a feature enhancement.

Pay for an upgrade. Crowd

[meeera]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, in most cases people do not know what is best for reading. People for example usually do not notice that it is hard to read with lines that are longer than around 60 characters.

The typographical rules of thumb are there for a reason. It is to make it easier to read. It is not there to allow people to read in a sub-optimal way.

I'm not sure why you're using the line-length issue as your example here? As far as I know, no epub formatters routinely artificially restrict the user from setting the font size so small that a line will be unmanageably long to read. It's not really an issue in this context.

I'm talking about fonts, line spacing, margins, etc. I've seen ebooks with ridiculously large line spacing, for no reason at all. Huge margins, again for no good reason, just because someone figured that a six-inch screen should look from a distance a bit like a trade paperback page. (I consider my bezel to be my "margin", and set a small but non-zero margin for the screen itself.) And speaking of fonts: every PDF I've seen that was purportedly laid out for a six-inch screen had a font in which the lines were so thin that the book was impossible to comfortably read. As shalym says, justification that works with small font sizes breaks badly with text enlarged for those with visual impairment, who are a huge and growing ebook market. And so on, and so on.

And no, my ebooks don't look like a completely unformatted text document. There are paragraph indents (the size that works for me), a small margin, an appropriate line spacing that is readable but doesn't waste space, a font carefully tuned by me to be optimally readable for my eyes on a small eink screen, glyphs at scene breaks as inserted by the publisher, yadda yadda.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And let me tell you, before you all jump on me about how sucky typos are, and how bad some of those Indie books are, etc.: this is an unintended consequence of that mindset. I see this nonsense all the time on the KDP forums, with authors asking "how to notify their buyers" that they've uploaded changed manuscript #9 billion, because they think it is OKAY to do that. This idea, that the books are constantly fungible, constantly changeable, constantly update-able, has led to an entire world of authors who think it's OK to put a book up that is not finished, isn't ready, isn't suitable for primetime, because "it can be fixed later." So not only is this "fix-it" mindset a disservice to real publishers, but it's a disservice to the READERS, too, because you now have created a culture of authors who think that they can just fix whatever you find, while you freely crowdsource the editing and proofing that they should have had long before they pushed the "save and publish" button in the FIRST place.

Yes, yes yes!

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by shalym

You make many points here, but a lot of them boil down to "The layout couldn't be changed in a print book, so why should it be able to be changed in an ebook?"

For me, I want it changed because that's one of the reasons I read ebooks instead of paper books. Ebooks are easier on my eyes, mostly because I can change the font size and style. When books are formatted as you suggest, enlarging the font can make the layout almost unreadable, especially with fully justified text. You keep dismissing the statements of the people who say these things, saying that because we couldn't change it in print books we shouldn't expect to be able to in ebooks. What I'm telling you is that there are a large number of people who read ebooks because most print books are not comfortable for them to read.

If there is a design element that is changed to make large print books more readable, why would you NOT include that change in ebooks, since there are so many people who will change the font to a large size?

Shari

Exactly! Large fonts and fully justified do not play well together. For me this font is not large at all, but look at the huge spaces between the words. To me it is unreadable justified. This is on a tablet btw.

[GeorgeH]

Why does anyone presume to decide what line length, font size, indent or any other facet of formatting is the best/only way things should be done? That's a strength of ebook readers. It allows for individual customization and I think it's reasonable to expect each person can make their own choices as to what is best for their reading enjoyment. I like that option and it's one of the reasons I use readers.

I think it would be nice if a common standard was used by all publishers but not in a way that unnecessarily restricts the customization allowed by the reader software.

It strikes me as being somewhat inflexible to asset that the only way to do things is the old way, i.e. the same as printed books.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by shalym

You make many points here, but a lot of them boil down to "The layout couldn't be changed in a print book, so why should it be able to be changed in an ebook?"

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, as others have said here, there are typographic standards for some very good reasons. AND, yes, to some extent, I'm saying that we're all spoiled rotten.

For me, I want it changed because that's one of the reasons I read ebooks instead of paper books. Ebooks are easier on my eyes, mostly because I can change the font size and style. When books are formatted as you suggest, enlarging the font can make the layout almost unreadable, especially with fully justified text.

Hold it: where did I say "how" I make books? Where did I say use fully-justified text? (We don't, FWIW.) We do very little in our books, from my company, that precludes you tweaking whatever you want. Do we embed fonts, for chapter heads or title pages? Yes, sometimes. Do we embed body fonts? Preferably not, but we'll do it if the client insists, AND we know that Amazon can support the font without corruption. What I have said in this thread is that I don't particularly like books that look like essays. And, yes, I said that there is a mindset that every ebook in the world should be able to be Gumbied, and not every author or publisher is okay with that.

You keep dismissing the statements of the people who say these things, saying that because we couldn't change it in print books we shouldn't expect to be able to in ebooks. What I'm telling you is that there are a large number of people who read ebooks because most print books are not comfortable for them to read.

I'm not dismissing them; I'm pointing out that a very short time ago, much of what's been discussed on this thread, ranging from "fixing typos every 5 seconds" to "fixing the margins, font, indents, block style paras, etc." didn't even exist as options. It may well be that lots of people (my father-in-law is one of them) deliberately read on e-devices because they can increase the font size, and that makes sense. Perhaps switching up fonts makes sense. As my vision hasn't gone yet (with my braincells), I can't speak to that.

But as I pointed out, as well, authors and publishers ALSO have particular visions for their works, and perhaps we've come to the question of: who gets to decide? Is it the artist's right to do whatever she wants, and you take it or leave it, or is every artist obligated to make his or her work, in whatever medium, fungible so that you (generically, not personally) can customize it to suit whatever you want? Given that most of the folks on MR can customize their own books, and do so, I'd say that here, at least, the point is moot.

If there is a design element that is changed to make large print books more readable, why would you NOT include that change in ebooks, since there are so many people who will change the font to a large size?

Shari

I never said that, did I? Nor did I say that an ebook should be a PDF. I don't think you'll ever see me say that. What I've said, a bit repetitively, at this point, is that some of this mindset--that any ebook can be changed around to do anything, or that typos can be fixed, etc., actually alters the original work. Moreover, it has contributed to a mindset in the very people whose work you're reading, that they don't have to polish their books to the nth degree prior to publication, because: ebooks can always be fixed. eBooks can always be changed. eBooks aren't printed.

And, somehow, despite all that, the Harry Potter books, which weren't digital, all managed to sell a gajillion copies, before JKR decided to make them available in ebooks. Somehow, everyone managed to suffer through that old immovable type (yes, that's a pun).

It's a double-edged sword. THAT is what I'm saying. I've seen both sides of it; I make my living at it...but truthfully, this outlook hasn't, to my thinking, served the publishing and reading communities well. {shrug}. I think I've said everything I have to contribute on this; others have mentioned things like the 60-character line length, etc., so....

Hitch

[Dngrsone]

Originally Posted by Hitch

But as I pointed out, as well, authors and publishers ALSO have particular visions for their works, and perhaps we've come to the question of: who gets to decide? Is it the artist's right to do whatever she wants, and you take it or leave it, or is every artist obligated to make his or her work, in whatever medium, fungible so that you (generically, not personally) can customize it to suit whatever you want? Given that most of the folks on MR can customize their own books, and do so, I'd say that here, at least, the point is moot.

This here is grist for an entirely different thread.

I was involved in a small conversation on this subject, and I asserted that the artist essentially cedes control of the piece (whether poetry, prose, or even a physical art piece) once it is released.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Hitch

But as I pointed out, as well, authors and publishers ALSO have particular visions for their works, and perhaps we've come to the question of: who gets to decide?

I think you're right that this is the key question. I'm going to be boringly predictable and say it's not a simple case of one or the other.

Is it the artist's right to do whatever she wants, and you take it or leave it,

Yes every artist has that right.

or is every artist obligated to make his or her work, in whatever medium, fungible so that you (generically, not personally) can customize it to suit whatever you want?

Obligated? Absolutely not. But equally there's no obligation for anyone to read that book and there are plenty of others available. So there's probably a decision there to be made about purity of the artistic vision versus it actually getting read. Art and commerce meet once again.

Both sides have their "rights". I neither think that the author/publisher has to concede their design goals, nor do I think the reader has to concede their requirements. It's just that neither can demand acquiescence of the other.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And, somehow, despite all that, the Harry Potter books, which weren't digital, all managed to sell a gajillion copies, before JKR decided to make them available in ebooks. Somehow, everyone managed to suffer through that old immovable type (yes, that's a pun).

Not everyone, no. There's no way I'd be able to read a print copy of The Deathly Hallows with my disabilities now. And plenty of other people with arthritis, visual impairment, chronic pain, muscle weakness, etc also wouldn't be able to, or would struggle mightily.

This conversation has many facets. Some are about the artiste's aesthetic vision. Some are about user-centric vs maker-centric design. Some are about accessibility for people with disabilities (again, as I said, a huge and growing market for ebooks). And so on.

For you, this all just seems to be a rant about how people these days are all spoiled-brat Gumbies who don't know what's good for them. I just don't find that a particularly edifying or productive conversation.

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Exactly! Large fonts and fully justified do not play well together. For me this font is not large at all, but look at the huge spaces between the words. To me it is unreadable justified. This is on a tablet btw.

Those blank lines between paragraphs are a waste of screen-space, and some of the too-large spaces between words could be solved if the words were hyphenated.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by meeera

Not everyone, no. There's no way I'd be able to read a print copy of The Deathly Hallows with my disabilities now. And plenty of other people with arthritis, visual impairment, chronic pain, muscle weakness, etc also wouldn't be able to, or would struggle mightily.

This conversation has many facets. Some are about the artiste's aesthetic vision. Some are about user-centric vs maker-centric design. Some are about accessibility for people with disabilities (again, as I said, a huge and growing market for ebooks). And so on.

For you, this all just seems to be a rant about how people these days are all spoiled-brat Gumbies who don't know what's good for them. I just don't find that a particularly edifying or productive conversation.

Fortuitously for all of us, the entire point of threads on this forum is for various people's opinions, whether we all agree with them or not. My viewpoint is not any less valid than that of any other reader, no matter who agrees with them. My views on this are certainly partly formed by the fact that I live in this world, on the publisher and production side, full-time, but frankly are more strongly formed by the nonsense I see with the endless gumby-ing of manuscripts. Apparently, however, you missed my point in which I supported the idea of resizable fonts, etc., or are choosing to ignore it. If you think I'm unsympathetic about having disabilities and using readers, you are quite, quite wrong.

I don't particularly like the idea that I have to peruse (not skim) every single book I want to try on Amazon because the "you can fix it if it sucks" mindset has taken root, which is indelibly tied to the "if it's digital, you can change it" mindset, and is definitely an offshoot of the "fix the book to be the way you want" idea. Or the endless discussions on forums where I see authors saying "well, I can't afford to hire an editor now, so I just slapped it up there, and after I've sold enough, I'll pay for an editor to fix it and I'll republish it then." Who is served by that? Not I as a reader. Nor you, whether you can better hold HP&TDH on a Nook or in print. That part is not relevant to the "fix it how you want it" aspect.

Now, maybe that's just me being cranky; but in my old and jaded opinion, books should be bloody finished BEFORE the publisher--traditional, self- or whatever--pushes "save and publish." I don't believe that you can extricate the one from the other. People have become accustomed to a number of things, in very few years; that all documents are subject to change, with a click; that books can be "changed" at will; that publishers should hop to and fix typos whenever someone reports one to Amazon; that margins, indents, paragraph styles, fonts, et al, are fungible...and that nowadays, an author doesn't have to bother to finish editing or polishing the book before publishing it, expecting you to expend your hard-earned money for it just as you would a title from Baen or Ace or RH.

I don't see them as separate things. I never said, as I iterated in this thread, that we make books like PDF's, nor did I say that they should be, although if PDF's had arisen to ascension, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all, and PDF's would be just as light for someone to read with an ereader. We wouldn't be discussing fonts, indents, margins...none of that. And even then, people would still be able to enlarge the font, albeit not as smoothly as they can now with ePUB. If the PDF's were created like POD PDF's are created now, nobody would be expecting publishers to stand at attention to fix typos, either.

Just making the observation. If people get ruffled feathers because I say that as readers, we've become spoiled, that's unfortunate, but as I said some 5 or 10 or 500 posts previously, that's a double-edged sword, because now we also have to live with all the unintended consequences of that instant gratification, which is completely crappy and incomplete works being published, for which we are asked and expected to pay. I find that an irksome climate in which to try to find books to read. It rather boggles my mind, to be blunt.

Lastly: I also hold, when forced, that the publisher has the "final say" in the layout of his or her book, just as s/he chose the words to use. When push comes to shove, I appreciate that the reader may like a different font. Hell, I often do myself. BUT: we get a lot of clients to whom the layout is important. They go to great lengths to pick a fleuron, or a font, or whatever. It matters to them. I'd love to think that both "sides" could be accommodated, but if I have to choose...I'd have to go with the entity paying for the book to be created in the first place. Yes, sure, readers buy it; but just like anything else, the person who pays the freight gets to choose. Using HP as merely one example, maybe a lot of people thought that those little chapter heading drawings in the digital versions were crap. Maybe they thought that they should 'go,' and not waste space. But from where I sit, she's entitled to have them in there, because she created that world. {shrug}. In a world in which everyone has 50 channels of TV tailored to them, content on the web tailored to them, News readers tailoring news bits to them...I don't see this as easily solvable. People have indeed become very accustomed to suiting themselves; a bespoke world. In as many ways as there are people.

Hitch

[tompe]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Obligated? Absolutely not. But equally there's no obligation for anyone to read that book and there are plenty of others available.

Very often you want to read a specific title and it is not interchangeable with another title. So not reading a book is very often not a choice for me.