Could this be the next Kobo Clara HD or Nia iteration?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

While the above is almost certainly true, "goldfinch" would be such a delightfully whimsical name, a real point of difference

That's true.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by John F

Then your initial post with the Libra 2 is wrong. Or you are inconsistent with your dimension conventions.

For the Libra 2, you used W x H x D.
For the Clara HD, you used H X W X D.

Actually that's the way Kobo lists the dimensions as well. It's misleading. The Clara is a bit taller (a little over half an inch) and the Libra 2 is significantly wider (about 2" wider). The Libra 2 is almost a square and the Clara is a vertical rectangle.

[John F]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Actually that's the way Kobo lists the dimensions as well. It's misleading. The Clara is a bit taller (a little over half an inch) and the Libra 2 is significantly wider (about 2" wider). The Libra 2 is almost a square and the Clara is a vertical rectangle.

On the Kobo website, under specifications for each reader:

Libra 2: 144.6 x 161.6 x 9 mm
Clara HD: 110 x 159.6 x 8.35 mm

Aren't both of those, W X H X D?

Looking at the pictures for both the Libra 2 and the Clara HD, they both look taller then they do wider.

Again, this is with the screen in portrait orientation.

What am I missing?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

Then your initial post with the Libra 2 is wrong. Or you are inconsistent with your dimension conventions.

For the Libra 2, you used W x H x D.
For the Clara HD, you used H X W X D.

I got the dimensions from The eBook Reader. My mistake for not double checking. Thank you for catching it.

Kobo Libra 2 size
161.6 x 144.6 x 9 mm

Kobo Clara HD size
159.6 x 110 x 8.35 mm

That makes the Libra 2 not as much larger then (when I had the size the wrong way round) the Clara HD.

The difference correctly is now...

2 x 34.6 x .65 mm larger for the Libra 2. That's not really all that much.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Actually that's the way Kobo lists the dimensions as well. It's misleading. The Clara is a bit taller (a little over half an inch) and the Libra 2 is significantly wider (about 2" wider). The Libra 2 is almost a square and the Clara is a vertical rectangle.

It is misleading as it's expected to have the dimensions in H x W x D. And given my mistake with the Libra 2 dimensions, it's not as much larger then then Clara HD as was previously though.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing is, if you've not tried a larger screen reader, you won't know what you are missing and you may find you like the larger screen. 1" doesn't sound like all that much of a difference, but it is noticeable.

What happens when you have tried a larger screen reader and you still prefer 6"?

[Calenorn]

But the Libra can change orientation.

So sometimes height IS width, and width is height.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

What happens when you have tried a larger screen reader and you still prefer 6"?

Then you return the larger screen Reader and go for the 6". Or you keep both and get another 6" Reader.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

But the Libra can change orientation.

So sometimes height IS width, and width is height.

But dimensions have to be consistent or we'll be getting it wrong. When you see dimensions, would you think of them as H x W x D or W x H x D?

[Calenorn]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But dimensions have to be consistent or we'll be getting it wrong. When you see dimensions, would you think of them as H x W x D or W x H x D?

Life is full of ambiguity. Somehow we cope.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Then you return the larger screen Reader and go for the 6". Or you keep both and get another 6" Reader.

Second option is the winning one

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But dimensions have to be consistent or we'll be getting it wrong. When you see dimensions, would you think of them as H x W x D or W x H x D?

I look at a picture and figure it out. Like I did throughout this thread. Instead of insisting on thinking that my opinion is the only correct way.

And Kobo has been consistent, haven't they. Don 't all their specs show W x H x D?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Second option is the winning one

I too like the second option. Some do this so as they find the 6" Reader more portable for taking with them.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by John F

I look at a picture and figure it out.

And Kobo has been consistent, haven't they. Don 't all their specs show W x H x D?

This reminded me of a difference between Nth American English and the variants I'm more familiar with - the processed lumber is , iirc known as "2 * 4" in Nth America, "4 * 2" in some other Englishes. Definitely a case for having a good look and figuring it out.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But dimensions have to be consistent or we'll be getting it wrong. When you see dimensions, would you think of them as H x W x D or W x H x D?

I'd look for a key.

What date is 9/11/9?
2022/08/18 or 2022-08-18 is unambiguous. ISO order & logical compared to any other measurement (H, m, s or degrees, min, sec or Stones, pounds & ounces). Only the USA uses mm dd yy, or mm dd yyyy everyone else with 2 digit years uses dd mm yy and yyyy mm dd or dd mm yyyy but without some other info you can't always tell if it's less than the 13th.

If there is a standard for the order of dimensions few use it. Sensible documents put the order as well as the data.