Ebook reader survey on preferred format(s)

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You bring up an interesting point there. One that I'm not sure I could take a guess at. I know I, personally, don't want a 10" reading device, just because of size. But then again I don't want a 15" laptop (I have an 11") and they're by far the most popular range.

I suppose I'm just trying to get my head around the whole PDF being 'crappy' angle. Why didn't the major publishers push for PDF (sized correctly) when ereaders were first introduced? Why would Sony back ePub if they could just as easliy license and affix DRM to PDF (an already marketible and known format)? Where are Adobe in all this and why haven't they been more agressive in placing PDF as the format for ebooks?

There's a lot of questions in my mind, and not nearly enough answers.

I don't agree. For me the only thing really 'crappy' about PDF is format shifting the book --LRF is on par here-- and PDF support from eInk devices. However since all of my reading devices support PDF I don't really have to format shift the book.

Look at the attached images. One is a screen shot of the actual page the other is a reflow from my BlackBerry Storm from a pdf reading program called RepliGo. The PDF support is great I just scroll up to read the PDF.

You'll notice the only thing the reflow does not handle well is indentation.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Why would Sony back ePub if they could just as easliy license and affix DRM to PDF (an already marketible and known format)? Where are Adobe in all this and why haven't they been more agressive in placing PDF as the format for ebooks?

There's a lot of questions in my mind, and not nearly enough answers.

I kind of feel like SONY did back up PDF. PDF was supported before ePUB. Also the PDF support was also much improved with their firmware release.
Also on the same stroke SONY support secure PDF and secure ePUB.

Actually I think Adobe has been extremely aggressive in their support for PDF. And their manner of execution is impressive. They've done it with out looking like an aggressor.

By lumping PDF and ePUB together and calling the formats Adobe Digital Editions was brilliant. In one stoke they've blurred the line between ePUB and PDF.

Here's there marketing pitch. "You want a secure ePUB solution. No problem use our API, oh and by the way with that API you also get secure PDF oh and also PDF reflow"

A hardware vendor is going to have a hard time resisting this temptation. Not only do they get ePUB, but PDF support which is still the dominate ePaper/eBook format.

=X=

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by ahi

So, the real question, JSWolf, is:

Why is the ability to make nitpicky adjustment of the font or the margin better than having somebody that knows far more about bookmaking than you creating a finely crafted eBook targeted at your reader device?

I think at the individual level, it's not much of a question. For a tech savy person that is picky about fonts, layout etc. being able to customize is a clear advantage.

But it's a useless feature for most folks who just want to buy a book, have it look good and readable without having to waste any time in their busy life to learn how to re-format it themselves.

They key is to get to a point where all books, magazines etc. can look good on all or most readers so no customization is needed for all but the most anal like Jon. And I really don't see how that can happen with out some standardization of screen sizes. Or at least aspect ratios of screens. Then people would just have to know that if they buy a smaller screen some larger format media like magazines are going to be hard to read, or have to be reflowed with the problems incumbent to doing so.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

For a tech savy person that is picky about fonts, layout etc. being able to customize is a clear advantage.

Makes sense upon first reading, but the more I think of it the stranger I find it.

A tech-savvy person ought to be more aware than a luddite that competent and knowledgeable people perform better in their own area of expertise than amateur enthusiasts do.

Why would then a tech-savvy person assume that they themselves can make better looking and more pleasant to read books than somebody with years or decades of bookmaking experience targeting their device? Because a unilateral declaration that tweaking is more important than professional typesetting is more or less that, the only way I can parse it.

Not that I think JSWolf or anyone else with that view really thinks this... which, again, is why I find it so strange.

- Ahi

[dmaul1114]

I think what you're missing is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

The experts may make a book that's better on the eyes for mass market, but that doesn't mean someone like Jon doesn't have his own preferences on how his books should look, what font he prefers to read etc. So customization is better for such people--it's not a matter of which is better in some aggregate sense, but just what is better to his eyes.

So I get his point. I just think it's irrelevant in the mainstream. Mainstream readers and e-book formats aren't going to have that kind of legal customization built in as publishers want to make their materials look a certain way. As with any kind of customization/hacking, people like Jon will just have to find a reader and software that allows them to do what they want with their books as it will never be something explicitly built in.

[ahi]

Maybe you are right. I have difficulty seeing it the way you are proposing though, because to me it's a bit akin to somebody with no professional painting training or experience deciding to alter the colour and pattern of their furniture's fabric with art-store bought fabric markers.

The result might appeal to their sensibilities, there is even a tiny outside chance that it might come out looking good... but it's extremely likely that the result will come out looking worse than it was when judged by an impartial jury of one's peers. (And, again, I am talking about properly done PDFs--not well nigh or literally unreadable crap that there is so much of in these dark times of eBooks.)

[dmaul1114]

Exactly, it's just that some people just want something to look the way they think looks best. And that's fair, people can do what they like.

They just shouldn't campaign so much for it being a necessary feature when it's something most people don't give two craps about. There will always be hacking and customizations out there for such people.

For the mainstream the key is just to get formats standardized so everything can look it's best with no user tweaks needed. I, like most people, stay pretty damn busy and don't want to waste time on stuff like customizing books. I want to turn on my reader, download the book I want to read and start reading.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by ahi

but there is no reason to assume that eBook reader display sizes won't get standardized and publishers won't start taking eBooks seriously enough one of these days to start publishing professional quality eBooks for them, instead of throwing overpriced sloppy HTML dumps at their customers.

Actually, the existing norm appears to be that people read pbook-derived PDFs on screens large enough to accommodate them (typically LCDs), so the standard already exists: a hardcover book. While there's variation among hardcovers, 95% will display with good fidelity on a 10" widescreen display, which also seems to hit a lot of people's sweet spot for portability-vs-screen-real-estate in a laptop. EInk devices have difficulty with PDFs because the hardware isn't suitable for displaying...books.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I, like most people, stay pretty damn busy and don't want to waste time on stuff like customizing books. I want to turn on my reader, download the book I want to read and start reading.

You prophesy the glory days of eBooks, you do!

Amen!

[=X=]

Originally Posted by ahi

Another way of saying what you say there is: "The day websites become good enough that HTML+CSS matches or even improves professionally typeset magazines and books, then magazines and books become pointless."

Ok... so my rephrasing kind of breaks after the comma, but, with all due respect: That will never happen. I really am not exaggerating in my "impossible to automate typesetting" claims. Can't be done: it requires a person. Automatic reflow is handing the keys to hardware+software--it will look like it was done by hardware+software instead of a person.

Websites have been around for well over a decade, and they remain typographically horrible. Designers, web designers themselves even generally acknowledge that.

The approach ePub takes (HTML + CSS) already failed to make the web as good as professionally produced print materials; it cannot make eBooks achieve that goal either.

But I think I should stop, because this is a long-running argument wherein the two sides do not tend to concede points to one another.*

- Ahi

* I mean in general, not specifically in this thread.

I don't think this is a fair statement you made on HTML+CSS. The reason web does not look as good as PDF is because they are serving different purposes. HTML pages are designed for the lowest common denominator and are designed with content shifting in mind. So they cannot be optimized for typesetting. PDF are made specifically for typesetting.
However without these constrains, I have seen some graphic designers design one-off web pages that would knock the socks off of you. Printed out the pages would look near identical to a PDF.

HTML is quite capable just not utilized properly. Where the difference lies is that PDF will not change it's layout if that same document is viewed on a smaller device, and the HTML will reflow and change altering the typesetting.

=X=

[ahi]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Actually, the existing norm appears to be that people read pbook-derived PDFs on screens large enough to accommodate them (typically LCDs), so the standard already exists: a hardcover book. While there's variation among hardcovers, 95% will display with good fidelity on a 10" widescreen display, which also seems to hit a lot of people's sweet spot for portability-vs-screen-real-estate in a laptop. EInk devices have difficulty with PDFs because the hardware isn't suitable for displaying...books.

From what I understand, the hardware vs. PDF problems are generally from overly complex PDFs. Perhaps PDFs that are going the extra mile to mitigate the perceive "limitations" of PDFs.

A PDF that is properly prepared for display (as opposed to for printing--the main difference being that there should only be 1-2 layers at most, and for display more things might be better suited to be pictures as opposed to overcomplex vector stuff) should display just fine with even 2nd generation eBook device hardware.

It's the sort of PDFs that are ultra-detailed so as to be (whether purposefully or unintentionally) printable at several multiples of the intended display size without quality loss that I imagine would bring poor Sony Readers and Cybooks alike to an unceremonious halt.

Or do I have it wrong?

- Ahi

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by ahi

You prophesy the glory days of eBooks, you do!

Amen!

Well, we pretty much have it now with simple books that are just text. There are some mild formatting issues, but generally any thing I buy for my Kindle or grab off Feedbooks etc. I can just open and read with no problems (as long as one isn't angle about occasional formatting issues).

The next step is to make the same happen with magazines, text books, scholarly articles etc. And as you and I have said repeatedly, the key their is standaridization in terms of size/aspect ratio so publishers can all work with some standard. Again it could just be a set max size so people can buy a reader that size and know they are good to go with everything, or by a smaller one and have some formatting issues.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by =X=

I don't think this is a fair statement you made on HTML+CSS. The reason web does not look as good as PDF is because they are serving different purposes. HTML pages are designed for the lowest common denominator and are designed with content shifting in mind. So they cannot be optimized for typesetting. PDF are made specifically for typesetting.
However without these constrains, I have seen some graphic designers design one-off web pages that would knock the socks off of you. Printed out the pages would look near identical to a PDF.

HTML is quite capable just not utilized properly. Where the difference lies is that PDF will not change it's layout if that same document is viewed on a smaller device, and the HTML will reflow and change altering the typesetting.

=X=

Quite capable is still worlds away from being able to match print quality. Not to mention that HTMLs reflowing is of a generally less demanding nature than that necessary on eBook devices.

Try enlarging the font on pretty much any website. At best the website won't break horribly... even then the overall quality of the page's presentation will get noticeably poorer due to the font resizing, not to mention jarring lack of resizing (or, alternatively, jarring pixelation/blurring) of images that really cannot be "correctly" resized.

Also, =X=, maybe I didn't communicate it well, but in part my message that you responded to meant to allude to the generally acknowledged fact that websites are typographically poor. This is common wisdom among web developers/designers who at least dabble in typography.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by ahi

From what I understand, the hardware vs. PDF problems are generally from overly complex PDFs. Perhaps PDFs that are going the extra mile to mitigate the perceive "limitations" of PDFs.

A PDF that is properly prepared for display (as opposed to for printing--the main difference being that there should only be 1-2 layers at most, and for display more things might be better suited to be pictures as opposed to overcomplex vector stuff) should display just fine with even 2nd generation eBook device hardware.

It's the sort of PDFs that are ultra-detailed so as to be (whether purposefully or unintentionally) printable at several multiples of the intended display size without quality loss that I imagine would bring poor Sony Readers and Cybooks alike to an unceremonious halt.

Or do I have it wrong?

- Ahi

I'm just talking about device dimensions

I suspect your "standardized display" already exists, and it's not an eReader.

[Darqref]

@ahi

You've pretty strongly defended PDF for what you call it's typographic quality, but I think my disagreement would largely amount to a combination of personal preference and semantic terminology.

You can correctly describe a PDF as having precision of intended design - fonts of specific parts, placement of items on the page, etc. For it to acheive *quality* it must, *MUST*, get through the filter of my eyes. And sometimes my eyes prefer a larger font. For other readers, it may be more a requirement than a preference. If the pdf, for whatever page size used, has a font that is too small, it needs to be able to be made larger. And for that to happen for a fixed size screen, it must reflow. If you make me merely magnify it, you effectively cut my battery in half or worse, due to the extra page turns.

It's not that I need or want a copy of the file that has been typeset for my eyes - it must support me *changing* that typeset, depending on how I feel at the moment. For this very specific reason, when I read fiction I want a reflow-able format. If I can't get that, then the value of my ebook reader is lower, when compared to a dead-tree book.


And for those who predict less paper: I keep thinking about an SF trilogy by Roger MacBride Allen, which presents a future including extensive space travel over centuries. The culture described in these books make the point that while electronic versions of knowledge are very portable and cheap to distribute, they are also capable of being corrupted. For that reason, original versions of textual knowledge are ALWAYS kept in printed form, because the printed form can be stored for long periods (and the description of the massive satellite where the central library stacks are kept makes me cringe).

[dmaul1114]

I think for text books etc. resizable and reflowable text is no problem--it already works well.

It gets trickier with things like magazines, graphic novels etc. The "art" of the layout is a lot of the appeal, and allowing reflowing, resizing etc. really ruins that. That's why I don't bother with something like Newsweek on my kindle and keep my print subscription, it just loses too much in the e-transition.

So I'm not sure we'll ever see magazines make a good transition if they have to be resizable and reflowable. They really just need to be on a larger screen and in a font that's good enough for most people who aren't legally blind etc.--just like the print versions--if it's ever going to be a satisfactory substitute for print versions.

Novels are easy. Text is text, doesn't matter as much how it flows (as long as it maintains paragraphs etc.) or what size or font it is.