NYT: Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain?

[Demas]

Originally Posted by LtChambers

The tech outpaces a trial? How long does it take to have people read for a few hours and report their eye strain? This isn't healthcare research where survival over a human's lifetime is critical to study

It outpaces the trial with respect to long term effects which is the only thing we care about (if it damages, then there's concern- but it's mitigated by the fact the tech gets outmoded in 5-10 years). Eyestrain is fully understood... NO expert says, "It's a mystery, we think virgin sacrifices are involved."... moreover, understood to be TEMPORARY (like scalding your mouth), so a trial is meaningless when the cure isn't a different display but periodic rest/good habits. By the time you take out the variables of behavior, equivalent light sources and ambient lightning, etc. you reach the completely unsurprising result that light is light.

There might be some value in measuring people's differing habits between the two, but it's not like that's a mystery either. Incidentally, the world record speed reading holders accomplished their fastest feats on LCDs.

[DawnFalcon]

It's "understood" in the same way general anaesthetics are.

[pshrynk]

Please refrain from personal attacks against other members.

pshrynk (moderator)

[mrscoach]

I haven't read all the pages of this thread, but I think my comment is still valid in regards to eye strain.

I have spent the last two weeks grading open-ended responses from 100 students, getting them ready for their English/Language Arts standardized tests in two more weeks. Eye strain comes not only from staring at any form of screen, but in reading paper, too. I have the sore eyes and blurred vision to prove this. (Yes, I am going to the eye doctor to renew my glasses prescription)

So asking if e-readers cause eye strain does not give a true picture, since looking at ANYTHING too long can cause eye strain.

I am grading a set of papers for all 100 students every 2 days, as we are on a 2 day rotation, and I see half one day and half the next. So far this two weeks I have graded 4 sets, with two more waiting for me. phbbbbtttt

[taglines]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Please refrain from personal attacks against other members.

pshrynk (moderator)

Well said. Cannot be said enough.

There needs to be more civility everywhere.

Please refrain from personal attacks against other members.

That phrase, pshrynk, should be posted in bold E-Ink above every comment thread and as a prelude to everyone's personal comments each time they comment. We should all know this by now, but it still takes time for the etiquette to sink in. There's room for disagreement, sure, but not for personal attacks. This is one of the negative aspects of the Web, but it is slowly being corrected, not by Web Police, but by good mods like you. Bravo!

[LtChambers]

Originally Posted by Demas

It outpaces the trial with respect to long term effects which is the only thing we care about (if it damages, then there's concern- but it's mitigated by the fact the tech gets outmoded in 5-10 years). Eyestrain is fully understood... NO expert says, "It's a mystery, we think virgin sacrifices are involved."... moreover, understood to be TEMPORARY (like scalding your mouth), so a trial is meaningless when the cure isn't a different display but periodic rest/good habits. By the time you take out the variables of behavior, equivalent light sources and ambient lightning, etc. you reach the completely unsurprising result that light is light.

There might be some value in measuring people's differing habits between the two, but it's not like that's a mystery either. Incidentally, the world record speed reading holders accomplished their fastest feats on LCDs.

You keep saying things aren't a mystery, but you provide no citations to scientific sources.

Clinical trials are not limited to long term issues. Migraines are temporary, but there's plenty of current science (not to mention pharmacology) pertaining to it. The trial could test the effects of different display technologies on readers' habits and their eye strain levels with each. That more natural setting would be more applicable than artificially holding the habits as a constant. Then study could go into why each technology encourages different habits and how the technologies can be adjusted to encourage good habits. You mention taking out the variables of "equivalent light sources" and "ambient lighting". My previous questions were about how equivalent these light sources (reflective vs. emissive) really are!

[Acreo Aeneas]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That's called aging.

Most people with eye problems need stronger prescription every few years regardless of their viewing habits.

Aging. Okay, perhaps if I were 50+, but I'm not, only 24. And when I say stronger prescription, I mean prescription lenses since I was not born with regular ol' 20/20 eye sight (far from it). Being a technology person (programmer), I spend a lot of my time on the computer. A aging person's eye sight will slowly deteriorate over time, but not at a rapid pace unless something's seriously or some other factor is at play (like backlit displays).

I just don't get why this topic is always so hostile. Read on whatever feels good to your eyes and let others do the same.

I don't see why e-ink diehards have to be so defensive, or others have to rant about how (insert different screen tech/new gadget) will lead to the death of e-ink.

There's plenty of room for all kinds of devices using e-ink or other reflective technology as well as LCD, OLED, pixel QI and other screens so everyone can find something that fits their needs.

I agree that we need to take a more moderate stand and take a look at the bigger picture. However, one screen type does not make it versatile for every use (whether or not it can or is used for everything under the sun).

From my understanding, those advocating for the death of e-ink are probably not very patient and feel e-ink displays lack the color depth and refresh rates of the now dominate LCD displays (and other backlit displays). Few of the younger ones remember the days of the first color monitors and those big ol' CRTs that practically developed at a snail's pace by today's standards. A emergent technology like e-ink isn't going to rapidly grow unless there's a good mass adoption and with that enough funding and hands to power the research.

And for those advocating for e-ink (or perhaps the death of LCDs), we see and believe in the use of the tech for e-readers as quite of a few of us are avid readers (more than a few hours at a time). Like paper, eyestrain is about the same (more in lower lighting conditions) which are not the case for backlit displays.

As it stands, I personally do not want to see a failure of e-ink based ereaders (or some other reflective screen type) and the (once again) mass adoption of portable backlit displays for reading books. At the same time, neither should we toss aside today's conventional screens. Both have their merits and their uses.

[badbob001]

If light plays a factor in eye strain, then certainly the display type plays a factor as well since different display types have different light characteristics given all other factors are the same, such as environment lighting and ergonomics. Certainly this can be tested, right? I mean, the same tests use to determine the cause of eye strain (I assume they were done) must have tested against different things being looked at and the same tests can be used to test against different display types.

We're talking about eye strain, which can develop in hours or less and not something that many take years, like cancer. Certainly we can get results well before the next advancement in display technology.

I hear some people saying that they have less eye strain when looking at e-ink versus lcd. How about hearing from people that have less eye strain when looking at lcd over e-ink or from people that have used both with no noticed difference? Obviously, it is important for someone to have used both display types because pain (eye strain) is relative. If it's not one-sided, then the factors leading to the difference in results need to be discovered.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Acreo Aeneas

Aging. Okay, perhaps if I were 50+, but I'm not, only 24. And when I say stronger prescription, I mean prescription lenses since I was not born with regular ol' 20/20 eye sight (far from it). Being a technology person (programmer), I spend a lot of my time on the computer. A aging person's eye sight will slowly deteriorate over time, but not at a rapid pace unless something's seriously or some other factor is at play (like backlit displays).

It's still aging. With growth hormone etc. your eyes get worse as you age/grow then level off until your near site starts to go.

I've always worn glasses as well, and my prescriptions kept getting worse until I was in my early 20s.

It's leveled off sense then and seldom has changed since (I'm 31 now)--think one eye is -.50 worse in contact prescription than it was 10 years ago, other eye is still the same. And I have spent MUCH, MUCH more time since then looking at back lit displays due to always being around a PC with grad school work and an academic career after graduating.

I don't think backlighting is going to degrade one's vision as long as they're working in properly lit environments, sitting proper distances from the screen etc. At least not anymore than any other kind of work that involves using mostly near site and not looking at distances very often during the day.

I agree that we need to take a more moderate stand and take a look at the bigger picture. However, one screen type does not make it versatile for every use (whether or not it can or is used for everything under the sun).

Yep, and some people have no need for whatever bothers another person about a screen. I never read in the sunlight, don't read for hours on end etc. so the benefits of e-ink are hugely important to me. To others they are, and I respect that and respect the use of the technology. No need for me to bash the tech like some due--and no reason for fans of e-ink to bash other tech--it's enough to just say that it's not for them IMO.

As it stands, I personally do not want to see a failure of e-ink based ereaders (or some other reflective screen type) and the (once again) mass adoption of portable backlit displays for reading books. At the same time, neither should we toss aside today's conventional screens. Both have their merits and their uses.

Agree 100%. I'll probably not buy another e-ink device after my Kindle, but e-ink or other equally good (or better) reflective screen readers should remain on the market for the avid readers who want them.

And I think they will. We live in a money driven world. As long as there's a sizable niche of people who want a product, some companies will make them as people aren't going to totally ignore avenues to make money.

There's plenty of room in the market for simple, dedicated readers with screens ideal for long-term reading, to LCD tablets and everything in between. It's not some zero sum endgame where only one screen technology can survive. E-books are very simple software wise, there will always be tons of different options for reading them.

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by Acreo Aeneas

Aging. Okay, perhaps if I were 50+, but I'm not, only 24. And when I say stronger prescription, I mean prescription lenses since I was not born with regular ol' 20/20 eye sight (far from it). Being a technology person (programmer), I spend a lot of my time on the computer. A aging person's eye sight will slowly deteriorate over time, but not at a rapid pace unless something's seriously or some other factor is at play (like backlit displays).

It's worth noting (I'm not saying that this is your case, but it's still a point to consider) that myopia (also called short-sightedness) gets worse the more your body produces growth hormones. The human body has a peak in growth hormone production between age 17 and 23 (normally), so in that timespan if one suffers of myopia he is forced to change eyeglasses often, each time with stronger prescription. This happens independently from your reading habits and screen technology. Perhaps those things could make it a little worse, but it would happen even if a short-sighted person would never stare at a book or screen.

After age 23, usually myopia stabilizes and sight degradation stops or at least slows down.

I don't know if other sight problems have the same behaviour, I know about myopia only because that's my own sight defect and my eye doctor explained this to me in detail.

[LJ Miehe]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

So I'm waiting for a tablet with an LCD or OLED, or Pixel QI screen on that front so I get the mark up ability and instant page refresh needs I need for my work reading. And I'd prefer the device have video capabilities, net surfing, PDA etc. as I'd get more use out of it. Vs. my Kindle which rarely leaves the night stand as I mostly read it in bed.

I think we may be different types of ereader users (which is okay).

First off, I don't understand the need for markup being you do academic works that seems to favor that, I just read tons of non-fiction books and many are technical in nature or history.

I still don't agree that a backlit technology at this point can compare to eInk when it comes to readability, I can read more much longer lengths of time on a eInk than a LCD/LED display, the glare bothers my eyes.

Second, I don't agree a eReader needs to be a PDA, video player, etc to be more useful. there are other devices that do those functions great but at this point I want the development of the eReader to be refined to the point where some of these other more mature technologies are at before I add a bunch of clutter (imho).

If it does get that type of dedicated attention I fear they will not reach their potential and won't really get more people reading as is my deep down incentive to see this happen in the end. I love reading and anything that lets me read more often is a plus in my book (no pun). I think as a society we have used the internet and other media too much that are usually just a derivative of closer source of knowledge and over time it is actually dumbing us down. Obviously that last part is a little off topic but I wanted to give a little more of my perspective to anyone who cared

[Acreo Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

It's worth noting (I'm not saying that this is your case, but it's still a point to consider) that myopia (also called short-sightedness) gets worse the more your body produces growth hormones. The human body has a peak in growth hormone production between age 17 and 23 (normally), so in that timespan if one suffers of myopia he is forced to change eyeglasses often, each time with stronger prescription. This happens independently from your reading habits and screen technology. Perhaps those things could make it a little worse, but it would happen even if a short-sighted person would never stare at a book or screen.

After age 23, usually myopia stabilizes and sight degradation stops or at least slows down.

I don't know if other sight problems have the same behaviour, I know about myopia only because that's my own sight defect and my eye doctor explained this to me in detail.

I know. I've asked plenty of questions over the course of the last two decades and most of my eye doctors have explained it over and over in detail (as yours have) and I know my prescriptions leveled off around 3 years ago (when I was 21). And also got worse less over the years when I first made the switch from a CRT to a LCD panel some 10 years ago (was like $500 for a 15").

A thought just struck me. It would be kind of nice to have a more developed version of the pixel Qi screen on panel monitors in the future. I think off the top of my head, it has better color reproduction than TN panels.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by LJ Miehe

I think we may be different types of ereader users (which is okay).

First off, I don't understand the need for markup being you do academic works that seems to favor that, I just read tons of non-fiction books and many are technical in nature or history.

Yep, just different types of readers. I don't need mark up on my Kindle where I'm just reading for leisure.

But for research articles, textbooks etc. I need to be able to highlight, jot thoughts in the margins as I'll be going back them and pulling quotes to put in my own articles or lectures, writing grant proposals to do a study that improves on past work--and needing to be able to quickly see find parts of those past studies that I need to reference etc.

I still don't agree that a backlit technology at this point can compare to eInk when it comes to readability, I can read more much longer lengths of time on a eInk than a LCD/LED display, the glare bothers my eyes.

We're just different readers again. I seldom read--work or leisure--for more than an hour or two tops in any given stretch as I have so much other work to do the reading just gets squeezed in here and their.

That and backlighting just personally doesn't bother my eyes much. I'm reading and writing on a PC hours a day, usually 7 days a week so I'm pretty used to it I suppose.

Second, I don't agree a eReader needs to be a PDA, video player, etc to be more useful. there are other devices that do those functions great but at this point I want the development of the eReader to be refined to the point where some of these other more mature technologies are at before I add a bunch of clutter (imho).

Just difference in needs. Reading is a part of my job, and a hobby, but it's not the main part.

So to get my money worth out of a tablet, it really needs to do more than just display my PDFs, academic books etc. and let me mark them up. Otherwise I'd just stick with printouts and physical books which usually aren't costing me anything out of my pocket anyway.

I'd get a lot more use by replacing my old PDA for my calendar, being able to stream tv shows and movies when needing a break etc.

Readers don't need much refining IMO, just display text fine, display PDFs as they look if printed out, give me basic highlighting and note scribbling abilities and I'm good. So I don't worry that having more functions will gimp the reader portion in anyway as it's so simple to get right IMO.

If it does get that type of dedicated attention I fear they will not reach their potential and won't really get more people reading as is my deep down incentive to see this happen in the end. I love reading and anything that lets me read more often is a plus in my book (no pun). I think as a society we have used the internet and other media too much that are usually just a derivative of closer source of knowledge and over time it is actually dumbing us down. Obviously that last part is a little off topic but I wanted to give a little more of my perspective to anyone who cared

We're just on different pages there. As I've said before, movies, TV, sports, video games, etc. are all activities I enjoy more than reading. Hence why I want a multifunction tablet and you don't.

And that's fine, that's why there will be a wide array of dedicated readers, multi function tablets and everything in between so we can all find what we need.

[lene1949]

I don't know anything about the science of 'seeing'..

I've read many paperbacks with very small writing, and I found that was straining my eyes...

In the dark I read on my ipod touch or Palm72, which are both backlit... During the day I read on my Kindle... None of these causes any eye strain as much as a poor paperback..

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by lene1949

I don't know anything about the science of 'seeing'..

I've read many paperbacks with very small writing, and I found that was straining my eyes...

In the dark I read on my ipod touch or Palm72, which are both backlit... During the day I read on my Kindle... None of these causes any eye strain as much as a poor paperback..

This just goes to show how different we all are. I had been using a Palm T3 and then PocketLoox N560 (Fujitsu-Siemends) PDAs for reading many moons before e-Ink devices hit the market. I never was happy with reading back-lit devices in the dark. The eye strain was just too distracting.
With PDAs it may have been the font size also that didn't agree with me. Mind you, I had no such problems reading off PDAs in normal light, although I still prefer e-Ink.
At the moment I'm using my wife's PRS-300 for bed time reading with a reading light, and have no issues.