problems making an image a hyperlink in epub

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Maybe its a locality thing, but I'm sure I see more gen-Z's reading p-books than I saw a few years ago...

That is, of course, because they are not "serious readers". After all we have just been told that "serious readers almost always have dedicated devices" (and that is a common claim made elsewhere in these forums). Plus the gen-Zs have done the Google thing and ended up landing on these forums where they have also discovered, not yet having the experience to know to take forum advice with a grain of salt, that if they read on their phones (or tablets) they will get hurty eyes, or even worse cause them permanent damage.

So tablets, phones and dedicated E Ink readers are out for reading by those who are not "serious readers"; what do they have left - pbooks, of course.

{Yes, I was trained in sarcasm by the very best }

But moving on, I have a feeling that all the parochial comments giving favor to E Ink displays may be a discouragement to potential new adopters of ebooks. After all, most of our younger kin have phones (and maybe a tablet as well) which they are very comfortable with, so if told they really need to buy another device for reading, and that with a display which is clearly not as sexy to them as good LCD and AMOLED can do they are just going to turn off.

John

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

I guess I'm not sure why the "golden number" would apply to reading devices. I get how it applies to pictures...as in, I understand the concept... but I've seen great pics that don't conform to that rule. I think it is more a training aid to get the photographer to think about composition...

I don't see how getting up to 60-66 characters on a line really makes a difference??

?? Whether it's paper or electronic is irrelevant. It's eye-flicks. The whole thing, created long before the type of testing, etc., that we have today, turns out to be related to how often the eye flicks from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. If the rhythm is off, if it's too fast or too slow, the person reading will "feel" as though they are either bored or antsy or irritated. Apparently, each eye flick sends a certain tiny amount of a transmitter or neurochemical, whatever, to the brain, related to the satisfaction from the reading. If it happens too rapidly, or too slowly, the reader becomes dissatisfied with the read, perceiving it to be for different reasons.

That's unrelated to paper or digital.

I use my phone to read, exclusively. I typically have it in landscape, but that is so the tables that are often in the books display nicely. It feels like the same width as an old style paperback book - maybe even a little wider. Although, my eyes have reached that 42+ years old range and I find myself making the font a little larger, I don't notice that there are fewer characters on the line. I just get to the end and my eyes move to the next line. I also use auto-scroll so I don't worry about page flipping/swiping. I don't notice anything until I get to the end of a chapter... unless, of course there is some atrocious grammar/spelling that jars me out of the story.

Well, obviously, there ARE fewer characters on the line, unless you can explain to me how your font could be larger, the screen the same size, and the character count NOT reduce?

Using scrolling or swiping has no impact on the flick.

FWIW, I counted the number of characters in a line and it is about 45-50.

Okay, well...then presumably, that number suits you--do you read for long periods of time this way, or not?

I simply find it fascinating that the golden number was considered and followed, long before anyone knew that eye flicks sent neurochemicals or dopamine or whatever-the-heck to the brain. If you think about it, publishers would normally be inclined to put as MUCH text on the line as they could, to reduce printing costs and optimize profit--but still, they stick with 60-66-character lines for novel-length books.

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

That is, of course, because they are not "serious readers". After all we have just been told that "serious readers almost always have dedicated devices" (and that is a common claim made elsewhere in these forums). Plus the gen-Zs have done the Google thing and ended up landing on these forums where they have also discovered, not yet having the experience to know to take forum advice with a grain of salt, that if they read on their phones (or tablets) they will get hurty eyes, or even worse cause them permanent damage.

So tablets, phones and dedicated E Ink readers are out for reading by those who are not "serious readers"; what do they have left - pbooks, of course.

{Yes, I was trained in sarcasm by the very best }

But moving on, I have a feeling that all the parochial comments giving favor to E Ink displays may be a discouragement to potential new adopters of ebooks. After all, most of our younger kin have phones (and maybe a tablet as well) which they are very comfortable with, so if told they really need to buy another device for reading, and that with a display which is clearly not as sexy to them as good LCD and AMOLED can do they are just going to turn off.

John

Perhaps you could explain how you inferred that I said that SOMEHOW, "tablets, phones and dedicated E Ink readers" are NOT for serious readers? I'm pretty sure that's exactly NOT what I said.

And on this forum, which IS for portable eReading, yes--the "serious readers" tend toward eInks. What, did you get lost on your way to the newspaper stand on the corner?

Hitch

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by Hitch

?? Whether it's paper or electronic is irrelevant. It's eye-flicks. The whole thing, created long before the type of testing, etc., that we have today, turns out to be related to how often the eye flicks from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. If the rhythm is off, if it's too fast or too slow, the person reading will "feel" as though they are either bored or antsy or irritated. Apparently, each eye flick sends a certain tiny amount of a transmitter or neurochemical, whatever, to the brain, related to the satisfaction from the reading. If it happens too rapidly, or too slowly, the reader becomes dissatisfied with the read, perceiving it to be for different reasons.

...

Interesting! Maybe I am addicted to flicks and need to get it more often!! lol

Yes, I occasional read for long periods this way... maybe 5-6 hours at a sitting. Usually though its for an hour or so before I go to sleep.

I was only talking about my phone settings to compare to the "golden number" and show that I didn't have any issues with a slightly shorter line. Perhaps I just got used to reading on a really small device many moons ago (pocket pc) and feel that the relatively larger screen today is a good balance??

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Perhaps you could explain how you inferred that I said that SOMEHOW, "tablets, phones and dedicated E Ink readers" are NOT for serious readers? I'm pretty sure that's exactly NOT what I said.

And on this forum, which IS for portable eReading, yes--the "serious readers" tend toward eInks. What, did you get lost on your way to the newspaper stand on the corner?

Hitch

Well Hitch I have no desire to get into a what seem to turn out to be lengthy and nonsensical discussions on meandering trails with you over what is what, who said this or that, what is "horseshit" and what isn't, etc., etc.

I'll leave the only comment to you from me as just being that I am sure that some others will see my points, and what I did and did not say.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

...I was only talking about my phone settings to compare to the "golden number" and show that I didn't have any issues with a slightly shorter line. Perhaps I just got used to reading on a really small device many moons ago (pocket pc) and feel that the relatively larger screen today is a good balance??

I also got going many moons ago on small devices for reading with Pocket PC (so around 2002) and never found small screens and short lines an issue for text. In fact on a 6" 18:9 ratio phone display I prefer to read in two columns in landscape rather than in around 5-1/4 inch lines.

Regarding the "golden number" I don't believe that its origin had anything to do with reading comfort at all. In the days of mechanical teleprinters the standard for transmission of teletype was that a CR/LF was to be sent prior to the 69th character in order to avoid the receiving printer overrunning its carriage width. In my early days I actually built programs for radio transmission of teletype (as was used by the likes of diplomatic posts, news agencies, amateur radio operators, ships, etc.) and if I recall correctly the design target was to have the CR/LF sent between 60 and 66 characters in order to minimize the splitting of words.

Even now with computer terminals with no carriage width limitation it is still common to break lines in the same place to display on screen.

[DiapDealer]

Speaking for only myself: I always cringe a little at the prefacing of the word "reader" with any kind of adjective used to convey the level of avidity or "seriousness" with which the individual approaches their reading. There are readers, and then there are non-readers. A reader's conviction, seriousness, addiction, avidity, love, etc... cannot be determined by the volume (or speed) one reads. There are those who read all the time, but slowly; and those that read half the time, but very quickly--and everything in between. The adjectives that typically get applied are unnecessary, in my opinion. Even if no offense is intended, the words chosen are still alienating in nature. If "serious/avid/hardcore" readers do X, then naturally anyone who espouses such notions must think that a reader who doesn't do X, isn't a serious/avid/hardcore reader. It tends to be offensive and/or confrontational for no conversational gain (or clarification) whatsoever.

Readers are people who can't imagine a life without books being a part of it. Everyone else is a non-reader. Speed, hours-per-day, books-per-year, are irrelevant. As are devices/media used by such a person. In short: "reader" and "serious reader" are the same thing. One is merely a bit redundant, is all.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

... In short: "reader" and "serious reader" are the same thing. One is merely a bit redundant, is all.

Nope
A 'serious reader never snickers, chortles or even comments out loud when they read.

I sometimes even yell at the Author: 'It is LOSE, not loose' (some other folk yell at the TV, that does not work when it is mostly OFF )

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Well Hitch I have no desire to get into a what seem to turn out to be lengthy and nonsensical discussions on meandering trails with you over what is what, who said this or that, what is "horseshit" and what isn't, etc., etc.

I'll leave the only comment to you from me as just being that I am sure that some others will see my points, and what I did and did not say.

Well, firstly, pretty sure I didn't say horseshit, either. Not sure where THAT came from. Perhaps you are conflating my posts with someone else's? Or, hell, just having utterly imaginary conversations with me?

And I'm equally sure that there's not one freaking meandering thing about my question, asking where you got your inference from, given what I actually said, ("...serious readers almost always have dedicated devices,..." which then went on to mention same) how the HELL did you come up with this statement?:

"So tablets, phones and dedicated E Ink readers are out for reading by those who are not "serious readers"; what do they have left - pbooks, of course."

As that's exactly the opposite of what I said. NOW, you're claiming that I said "horseshit," when I didn't. Who the HELL are you reading?

So, yes, I have no doubt that you don't want to discuss it.

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I also got going many moons ago on small devices for reading with Pocket PC (so around 2002) and never found small screens and short lines an issue for text. In fact on a 6" 18:9 ratio phone display I prefer to read in two columns in landscape rather than in around 5-1/4 inch lines.

Regarding the "golden number" I don't believe that its origin had anything to do with reading comfort at all. In the days of mechanical teleprinters the standard for transmission of teletype was that a CR/LF was to be sent prior to the 69th character in order to avoid the receiving printer overrunning its carriage width. In my early days I actually built programs for radio transmission of teletype (as was used by the likes of diplomatic posts, news agencies, amateur radio operators, ships, etc.) and if I recall correctly the design target was to have the CR/LF sent between 60 and 66 characters in order to minimize the splitting of words.

Even now with computer terminals with no carriage width limitation it is still common to break lines in the same place to display on screen.

The "golden number" in terms of line typography predates CR/LF.

The factual establishment of the "why" (as opposed to other reasons) has been fairly recent, in the last decade, if memory serves. In studying human reading and eye movement, the folks studying it were surprised to find the results, which seemed to indicate that typesetters and book designers had figured it out, without the benefit of advanced physiological testing that showed the eye-flicks, neurochemicals, etc. Google it.

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Speaking for only myself: I always cringe a little at the prefacing of the word "reader" with any kind of adjective used to convey the level of avidity or "seriousness" with which the individual approaches their reading. There are readers, and then there are non-readers. A reader's conviction, seriousness, addiction, avidity, love, etc... cannot be determined by the volume (or speed) one reads. There are those who read all the time, but slowly; and those that read half the time, but very quickly--and everything in between. The adjectives that typically get applied are unnecessary, in my opinion. Even if no offense is intended, the words chosen are still alienating in nature. If "serious/avid/hardcore" readers do X, then naturally anyone who espouses such notions must think that a reader who doesn't do X, isn't a serious/avid/hardcore reader. It tends to be offensive and/or confrontational for no conversational gain (or clarification) whatsoever.

Readers are people who can't imagine a life without books being a part of it. Everyone else is a non-reader. Speed, hours-per-day, books-per-year, are irrelevant. As are devices/media used by such a person. In short: "reader" and "serious reader" are the same thing. One is merely a bit redundant, is all.

BTW--I know a lot of people who read casually and may only read a book a month, or even less. Sorry, but to me, reader and "serious reader" are not the same thing. You guys want to argue that it's tautological, great, but if you only know voracious readers, I'm happy for you. I know a good number of people that read very sparingly. I wouldn't call them "non-readers," but nor do they go through hundreds of books/annum.

I wasn't judging the "goodness" of a reader by their volume--but the VOLUME, vis-a-vis print versus eBooks. I find that people who read a LOT, in terms of books/annum, tend to have eBook readers. (Or they haunt the library, take your pick.) People who want to read 20 books on vacation tend to have ebook readers. It's a practical matter. You guys want to assume that I was judging someone, in terms of "serious," fine.

But I was really talking about how people fall into eBook readers, especially early adopters--it was usually desperation, in terms of storage space. I know it was for me. I'd bought a house, literally twice the square footage of my prior house, because I'd been overrun with books, and still didn't have enough wall space for my paperbacks and hardcovers (I think I lost count around 2600 books or so, just in fiction, not counting non-fiction volumes here)--and thus, ended up with a Kindle. I've heard that story any number of times from other people--without the new house part, of course. I can't bring myself to part with books, so electronic devices were my salvation.

(FWIW, I know an "author" that doesn't read--at all. Yeah, knocked me for a loop the first time he told me that, too. Of course, his books suck. Nonetheless, he exists. I've mentioned him here in other contexts, previously.)

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Hitch

BTW--I know a lot of people who read casually and may only read a book a month, or even less. Sorry, but to me, reader and "serious reader" are not the same thing. You guys want to argue that it's tautological, great, but if you only know voracious readers, I'm happy for you. I know a good number of people that read very sparingly. I wouldn't call them "non-readers," but nor do they go through hundreds of books/annum.

I wasn't judging the "goodness" of a reader by their volume--but the VOLUME, vis-a-vis print versus eBooks. I find that people who read a LOT, in terms of books/annum, tend to have eBook readers. (Or they haunt the library, take your pick.) People who want to read 20 books on vacation tend to have ebook readers. It's a practical matter. You guys want to assume that I was judging someone, in terms of "serious," fine.

But I was really talking about how people fall into eBook readers, especially early adopters--it was usually desperation, in terms of storage space. I know it was for me. I'd bought a house, literally twice the square footage of my prior house, because I'd been overrun with books, and still didn't have enough wall space for my paperbacks and hardcovers (I think I lost count around 2600 books or so, just in fiction, not counting non-fiction volumes here)--and thus, ended up with a Kindle. I've heard that story any number of times from other people--without the new house part, of course. I can't bring myself to part with books, so electronic devices were my salvation.

(FWIW, I know an "author" that doesn't read--at all. Yeah, knocked me for a loop the first time he told me that, too. Of course, his books suck. Nonetheless, he exists. I've mentioned him here in other contexts, previously.)

Hitch

Much like I don't consider someone who cooks very sparingly "a cook," I don't consider someone who reads very sparingly "a reader." Different strokes. And no, I don't think you were consciously judging anybody, but I thought I'd share that to some, that sort of language CAN come across judgmental. The fact that this conversion is not remotely an isolated incident on these forums is proof of that, I think.

And regardless of all that, I still question whether the assumption that "most readers-who-read-hundreds-of-ebooks-per-year" have dedicated eink devices is actually still true (or if it was true for any "serious" length of time). *shrug*

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Much like I don't consider someone who cooks very sparingly "a cook," I don't consider someone who reads very sparingly "a reader." Different strokes. And no, I don't think you were consciously judging anybody, but I thought I'd share that to some, that sort of language CAN come across judgmental. The fact that this conversion is not remotely an isolated incident on these forums is proof of that, I think.

And regardless of all that, I still question whether the assumption that "most readers-who-read-hundreds-of-ebooks-per-year" have dedicated eink devices is actually still true (or if it was true for any "serious" length of time). *shrug*

I see--so, you're judging them internally, BEFORE you name them as readers.

Just teasing, but that's what you're doing-you're simply mentally dismissing casual readers from the group "reader". Gotcha. Of course, the upside to that is, you aren't offending anyone not living inside of your brain. I managed, apparently, to offend someone through the use of the phrase "serious readers." Oh, well.

I was mostly talking about the fact that most "readers" (in your group) use SOME kind of device, and yes, I do think that most readers (ditto) have a dedicated device therefor. I don't have some big poll to point to; just a casual poll of our own 4,000+/- clients. We have the one group--our clients that have never read or owned an eReader, but who read DT Books, and our clients that have. Of those that have, an overwhelmingly large number own eInks.

I'd be the FIRST to say, our clients are not, by and large, MR members or in the set of people who would be MR members. They wouldn't try Calibre, or Sigil, etc., so clearly, that's a different set of folks than y'alls. Honestly, I thought that made them a more "typical" group of readers than MR members, who are (mostly) device nuts.

So, anyway, BACK OT: it's not that easy to see the link indication, limning images, in eInks.

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I see--so, you're judging them internally, BEFORE you name them as readers.

Just teasing, but that's what you're doing-you're simply mentally dismissing casual readers from the group "reader". Gotcha.

No. I'm doing nothing of the sort. A "casual" reader is included in my definition of "reader." But again ... I make no distinction based on volume. "Casual" is simply not the opposite of "serious" in my personal lexicon (RE reading volume anyway--personal relationships are another story).

My point is that I make no distinction between the casual or high-volume reader. All are readers who may loves and adores reading equally. Volume, speed, or endurance are not things I factor in when it comes to readers. There are simply those who read because they want to, and those who only read because they have to. The latter are not "readers" to me, and the former need no further demographic breakdown, in my opinion. I still personally consider "serious" to be a slightly loaded and incorrect term, if you insist on defining subcategories of those who love to read (regardless of how much they may actually "get done").

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Regarding the "golden number" I don't believe that its origin had anything to do with reading comfort at all. In the days of mechanical teleprinters the standard for transmission of teletype was that a CR/LF was to be sent prior to the 69th character in order to avoid the receiving printer overrunning its carriage width. In my early days I actually built programs for radio transmission of teletype (as was used by the likes of diplomatic posts, news agencies, amateur radio operators, ships, etc.) and if I recall correctly the design target was to have the CR/LF sent between 60 and 66 characters in order to minimize the splitting of words.

Even now with computer terminals with no carriage width limitation it is still common to break lines in the same place to display on screen.

Ummm.... minor nit. The golden mean (or golden ratio or golden section or 1.618) predates electronics. It was more of an art than science but the basic idea was there. Check Greek architecture for example.

Now if I could figure out how this applies to making an image a hyperlink...