Can you read complete books on an LCD screens?

[hobnail]

The problem with white text on a black background is bleed. With a printing press when the inked metal print was pressed into the paper, around each letter some of the ink bled into the surrounding paper. With an lcd (or crt) you get something similar with a slight glow of the white pixels encroaching on the black areas adjacent to them. It's happening on a very small level but it's there. Good font designers take this bleed into account, but they do it assuming the text will be black and the background white. When you use that same tweaked font as white on a black background it can look different and be hard to read.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

So far, so right - but you don't see single photons.

I was going to make that same point. One water molecule is much like another but there is a huge perceptible difference in, say, a misting rain and a water jet cutter.

...and also, on the quantum level, I'm not so sure it's true that one photon is exactly the same as another...but again, the nature of individual photons is not at all the issue in perception of an image.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I find it perfectly believable that a very large portion of approximately 50% of poll responders have failed to adjust the brightness to a level to read comfortably.

I think you are extrapolating a general principle from a single example. i.e. because you are personally capable of reading books on LCD without discomfort, then everyone else (except for those with a "condition") is also capable. If they cannot, then they must be doing something wrong. i.e. they have it turned up too bright.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by ApK

I was going to make that same point. One water molecule is much like another but there is a huge perceptible difference in, say, a misting rain and a water jet cutter.

...and also, on the quantum level, I'm not so sure it's true that one photon is exactly the same as another...but again, the nature of individual photons is not at all the issue in perception of an image.

Yes, I agree the "all photons are the same, so LCD is fine" argument is "short sighted." It is the triumph of theory over evidence, and the opposite of good science.

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Hmmm... my phone weighs in at 189 grams while my Kobo Forma weighs in 197 grams, a truly massive 8 gram weight difference. I can easily hold the Forma one handed while using my thumb to trigger the page forward button.

Nice for you then. Some of us have severe arthritis in our hands, and trying to hold any of the 6” tablets/readers in one hand triggers extreme pain. This does not happen with a small phone. It had nothing to do with weight. Although, the phone I read on is 113g, and the other, 138g.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

[...] That's not to say I think more people should admit to being able read books just fine on LCD devices (let alone that they should indeed read on LCD at all). It only means I'm tired of the combination of pseudo-science and advertising that gets trotted out as some sort of incontrovertible evidence that Eink is objectively "better" for Reading™.

But the problem is that you appear to be replacing pseudo-science with pseudo-science. No, I'm not convinced that it's a simple reflective vs direct thing (given all the filters involved, LCD could hardly be described as direct anyway). But there remain a myriad of technical and implementation differences, and any combination of these might go some way to explaining people's reactions.

I think is is clear that in BOTH those that answered Yes and those that answered No there are a range of reasons why. Look at kyteflyer's response in the post above where it appears that simply the size/proportion has played a significant role in what is comfortable.

Such responses make me wonder if MR sees a greater proportion of people with accessibility issues largely because electronic reading devices of all types help people to resolve those issues, and so this, too, might go some way to explaining the results of this poll.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think is is clear that in BOTH those that answered Yes and those that answered No there are a range of reasons why.

Of course there are. Never suggested otherwise. My entire point is that there is no objective "Better for Reading™" or "Worse for Reading™". It's just that over the years, it's invariably some of the "Better for Reading™" crowd that seem to go to that "bright lights shining in your face" well over and over again. If the issue is not about intensity (as many here now seem to be suggesting) then why is intensity always the mantra?

I'm not exchanging pseudo science with anything. The only thing science-related I've claimed is that, lumen for lumen, the eye cannot differentiate between indirect and direct lighting. That's not pseudo science. You want to say that's not the only issue? Fine. I'll listen. But while we're doing that talking, another "Better for Reading™" proponent will join the fray (who hasn't read the entire thread) to proudly proclaim the eink is better because it's not shining bright lights directly in your face.

Again: I'm perfectly fine with people saying "I prefer eink", or "LCD gives me headaches", or "small screens don't show enough text", or anything else regarding their personal preferences/experiences that stops short of a Better/Worse for Reading™ proclamation.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Yes, I agree the "all photons are the same, so LCD is fine" argument is "short sighted." It is the triumph of theory over evidence, and the opposite of good science.

Good thing nobody actually made that argument, then, huh?

The argument has always been "all photons are the same, so eink lighting is not Better™" .

But don't let that stop you from taking your victory lap.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I think you are extrapolating a general principle from a single example. i.e. because you are personally capable of reading books on LCD without discomfort, then everyone else (except for those with a "condition") is also capable. If they cannot, then they must be doing something wrong. i.e. they have it turned up too bright.

And I think you don't actually read my posts for comprehension.

Never once have I suggested that everyone (except those with a "condition") should be able to read without "discomfort" (look I can scare quote words, too!) on LCD. And never once have I suggested that all those who can't must be doing something wrong.

Clearly you have your own extrapolation issues.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of course there are. Never suggested otherwise. [...]

So the earlier post was just someone using your username? See:

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I find it perfectly believable that a very large portion of approximately 50% of poll responders have failed to adjust the brightness to a level to read comfortably.[...]

Sure there's more context in the posts - both yours and mine. Suffice to say that the strength of your argument comes over as a virtual accusation that close to 50% of people can't adjust their brightness (which is a curious accusation considering most phones and tablets do it automatically these days), rather than offering that there might be a range of reasons.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

Sure there's more context in the posts - both yours and mine. Suffice to say that the strength of your argument comes over as a virtual accusation that close to 50% of people can't adjust their brightness...

Not sure what a virtual accusation might be, but I simply don't understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that I've accused (virtually or otherwise) 50% of everyone/everywhere of not being able to adjust their brightness. Even by examining only your quote of me (with or without context). I also allowed that for some of those many, it is through no fault of their own that the intensity is not correctly adjusted. Some devices may lack the range to adjust to their comfort level. I did not suggest that users did not know how to adjust their brightness. I merely suggested that it's not hard for me to believe that at large number of the MR poll respondents who voted No failed to get their brightness set to a comfortable level. For any number of reasons.

Originally Posted by gmw

(which is a curious accusation considering most phones and tablets do it automatically these days), rather than offering that there might be a range of reasons.

It is precisely because automatic brightness adjustment that I believe some haven't properly adjusted their brightness. And you, yourself, have noted (and commented on) the discrepancies between the automatic adjustment of lighting between eink and lcd (or even phone vs tablet) devices. So surely it's not going out on a limb to suggest that some might be assuming that setting the brightness slider to the same position means that both devices have been set to the same brightness. I HAVE offered a range of reasons why I believe a large portion of those who voted No (to this particular MR Poll) might have done so.

Not once have I suggested, hinted, or intimated that everyone everywhere should be able to read for long periods of time on LCD devices (or that they should do). I don't care what people read on. I care about their proclamations about why their choice is inherently Better for Reading™

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by gmw

So the earlier post was just someone using your username? See:


Sure there's more context in the posts - both yours and mine. Suffice to say that the strength of your argument comes over as a virtual accusation that close to 50% of people can't adjust their brightness (which is a curious accusation considering most phones and tablets do it automatically these days), rather than offering that there might be a range of reasons.

Failing to adjust the brightness isn't the same as saying someone "can't."

Failing to comprehend the written word isn't the same as not being able to.

[dwig]

Under the right conditions with a good quality LCD screen, yes I can and have done so hundreds of times.

That said, the screen's backlighting has a vast amount of impact on the ability to ready for a long period with eyestrain. With modern LED backlighting, I have more difficulty when I dim the screen to match the room light level compared to when I leave the screen bright and increase the room lighting to balance with the bright screen.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by gmw

Such responses make me wonder if MR sees a greater proportion of people with accessibility issues largely because electronic reading devices of all types help people to resolve those issues, and so this, too, might go some way to explaining the results of this poll.

This does seem possible.

Also, it some people who buy e-ink devices find MobileRead when they are seeking help using the device. So maybe partly due to this, there is a higher percentage of people here who prefer e-ink than out in the rest of the world? I know questions about my ereader were what first drew me to MobileRead.

[4691mls]

I wonder if people who report they can't comfortably read on LCD are more bothered by glare in general? I've noticed that while I usually have my car's sun visor down on all but the darkest of days, I rarely see other drivers using them.