Can't eBooks be beautiful if they're not designed?

[Doonge]

edit:

What happens when the user changes the default line spacing on their reader to be bigger or smaller than the default?

As long as the line spacing is superior than 1 (which should be, less than 1 harms seriously readibility right?), nothing happens would be my guess and it behaves as expected. I just tried this with calibre on my computer, changed from 1 to 1.2 to 1.4 1.5 up until 2. I did not test on an ereader so perhaps you know more than I do.

-------------------

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nope. I'm trying to my best (and it's not at all difficult for me) to not look at covers primarily because I don't see the point of cover art on fiction. I don't need/want it. I don't display it, I don't cherish it, I don't choose (or decline) books because of it. That I might occasionally "SEE" a cover in my forays into book-buying doesn't change any of that.

I will bypass the rest because it's not particulary funny.

You were astonished to encounter a "strong" reaction to your claim, and I think perhaps this is part of the crux of it.

Saying that we are influenced by book cover is a general statement about the relation between us, humans, and images. There's no quantifier, could be a little could be a lot.

Saying the opposite as a simple statement (no context) is saying there is no relation between you, a human, and images. Yet you're not blind, so your statement is like saying you're not human, or that you're superhuman.

I guess that's not what you intend to convey.

But you spend a lot of lines to say that you have RATIONAL REASONS not to trust covers, hence you are unaffected by them even when you look at them. This is another way of saying you are superhuman.

Everybody has rational reasons to distrust covers (and reasons to like them aswell, because you recognize a cover way faster than a title, which hasten searches for instance, even probably for you if you sometimes browse your collection or searches results with cover thumbnails). But somehow everybody but you and a few other snowflakes seems unable to be unaffected by covers? You have a very logical mind is likely a belief that you have.

If you recognize that what you mean is that you actively discard covers in order to not be influenced by them at all (and you could be in another context when you are looking at them, even if only slightly), then you must insist on the context, not on your superlogical nature. Because even if you indeed are very smart and logical, this angle is oftentimes taken by smartasses and ignoramuses (and you don't want to look like one is my guess).

This would be my take as to why your apparently simple claim incurs miscommunication. Better luck next time.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by Doonge

As long as the line spacing is superior than 1 (which should be, less than 1 harms seriously readibility right?), nothing happens would be my guess and it behaves as expected. I just tried this with calibre on my computer, I did not test on an ereader so perhaps you know more than I do.

If the line-height of the raise-cap is set to zero then it works even if the user sets the line spacing below 1. e.g.

span.raise-cap {
  font-size: 3em;
  line-height: 0;
}
p.opening-para {
  text-indent: 0;
  padding-top: 2em;
}

<p class="opening-para"><span class="raise-cap">T</span>his raise-cap doesn't affect the line-height of the paragraph.</p>

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

If the line-height of the raise-cap is set to zero then it works even if the user sets the line spacing below 1. e.g.

span.raise-cap {
  font-size: 3em;
  line-height: 0;
}
p.opening-para {
  text-indent: 0;
  padding-top: 2em;
}

<p class="opening-para"><span class="raise-cap">T</span>his raise-cap doesn't affect the line-height of the paragraph.</p>

Wow it's even better!

Are there some problem you encounter with this?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Doonge

edit:


As long as the line spacing is superior than 1 (which should be, less than 1 harms seriously readibility right?), nothing happens would be my guess and it behaves as expected. I just tried this with calibre on my computer, changed from 1 to 1.2 to 1.4 1.5 up until 2. I did not test on an ereader so perhaps you know more than I do.

-------------------



I will bypass the rest because it's not particulary funny.

You were astonished to encounter a "strong" reaction to your claim, and I think perhaps this is part of the crux of it.

Saying that we are influenced by book cover is a general statement about the relation between us, humans, and images. There's no quantifier, could be a little could be a lot.

Saying the opposite as a simple statement (no context) is saying there is no relation between you, a human, and images. Yet you're not blind, so your statement is like saying you're not human, or that you're superhuman.

I guess that's not what you intend to convey.

But you spend a lot of lines to say that you have RATIONAL REASONS not to trust covers, hence you are unaffected by them even when you look at them. This is another way of saying you are superhuman.

Everybody has rational reasons to distrust covers (and reasons to like them aswell, because you recognize a cover way faster than a title, which hasten searches for instance, even probably for you if you sometimes browse your collection with cover thumbnails). But somehow everybody but you and a few other snowflakes seems unable to be unaffected by covers? You have a very logical mind is likely a belief that you have.

If you recognize that what you mean is that you actively discard covers in order to not be influenced by them at all (and you could be in another context when you are looking at them, even if only slightly), then you must insist on the context, not on your superlogical nature. Because even if you indeed are very smart and logical, this angle is oftentimes taken by smartasses and ignoramuses (and you don't want to look like one is my guess).

This would be my take as to why your apparently simple claim incurs miscommunication. Better luck next time.

People are NOT sheep.
Why are you insisting that DiapDealer must actively look or not look at covers?
He may just not notice them. They may have no influence on him.
Yes, many people are influenced by covers or they must have the latest and greatest whatever because "influential" person says it is the greatest.
That does not mean that ALL people are influenced by something.
Oh and you mentioned that you judged people on their looks.
That proves that you are a very visual person.

There are some of us who just really don't buy or judge on visual stuff. That doesn't make us abnormal or less than human.
Those studies were done with very select groups of people.

As far as visual goes, I know someone that didn't realize Liberace liked guys until she read Behind the Candelabra.
And I don't know of anyone more flamboyant.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Doonge

Because even if you indeed are very smart and logical, this angle is oftentimes taken by smartasses and ignoramuses (and you don't want to look like one is my guess).

Given my stance on visual influence, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that I don't much care what people might think I "look" like.

My statement was simple (and without context) because I assumed (that's my bad, I know) that people wouldn't feel the need to pedantically extrapolate when they already knew what I meant from the beginning (especially considering the inherent "Beautiful ebooks" thread context). But some people can't help themselves--I know. It's still the internet, after all.

[Doonge]

Given my stance on visual influence, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that I don't much care what people might think I "look" like.

My statement was simple (and without context) because I assumed (that's my bad, I know) that people wouldn't feel the need to pedantically extrapolate when they already knew what I meant from the beginning (especially considering the inherent "Beautiful ebooks" thread context). But some people can't help themselves--I know. It's still the internet, after all.

We have all our flaws. I don't think what you meant was crystal clear in your head at the start of the topic, but that's not a flaw. Discussions, even pedantic ones, are there to sometimes have some fun and clear the air. Win win.

But it's silly to think your articles prove that no one could possibly be immune to their influence.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

People are NOT sheep.
Why are you insisting that DiapDealer must actively look or not look at covers?
He may just not notice them. They may have no influence on him.
Yes, many people are influenced by covers or they must have the latest and greatest whatever because "influential" person says it is the greatest.
That does not mean that ALL people are influenced by something.
Oh and you mentioned that you judged people on their looks.
That proves that you are a very visual person.

There are some of us who just really don't buy or judge on visual stuff. That doesn't make us abnormal or less than human.
Those studies were done with very select groups of people.

As far as visual goes, I know someone that didn't realize Liberace liked guys until she read Behind the Candelabra.
And I don't know of anyone more flamboyant.

I think you are a nice person, and actually I wanted to respond to one of your previous post but I got a guest and I forgot which thread it was (I was agreeing with you).

I don't think DiapDealer need defending, and you are not convincing me (even if you bring some very good points, I think they are overall unrelated).

I do judge people by their looks, as do everyone. I know it sounds bad, but fortunately we don't judge people ONLY by their looks. And as we are aware of it, we can try to compensate. Plus I'm not quantifying how much I judge by looks. Perhaps there's some very visual people as you say (I know you are right), and some less visual, but everyone judge using our senses (and vision remains an important sense for most people). People who are less visual are indeed human aswell, but they remain visual to some extent (unless blind or vision impairment, or perhaps even brain impairment! I work with neuro-opthalmologists ^^).

Best regards.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Doonge

We have all our flaws. I don't think what you meant was crystal clear in your head at the start of the topic, but that's not a flaw. Discussions, even pedantic ones, are there to sometimes have some fun and clear the air. Win win.

But it's silly to think your articles prove that no one could possibly be immune to their influence.



I think you are a nice person, and actually I wanted to respond to one of your previous post but I got a guest and I forgot which thread it was (I was agreeing with you).

I don't think DiapDealer need defending, and you are not convincing me (even if you bring some very good points, I think they are overall unrelated).

I do judge people by their looks, as do everyone. I know it sounds bad, but fortunately we don't judge people ONLY by their looks. And as we are aware of it, we can try to compensate. Plus I'm not quantifying how much I judge by looks. Perhaps there's some very visual people as you say (I know you are right), and some less visual, but everyone judge using our senses (and vision remains an important sense for most people). People who are less visual are indeed human aswell, but they remain visual to some extent (unless blind or vision impairment, or perhaps even brain impairment! I work with neuro-opthalmologists ^^).

Best regards.

Oh for the love of books,
Do NOT ever tell me how I judge people. I am not that shallow. I have NEVER in my life judged a person on how they look. One cannot help how they look.
I try not to judge people but when I do, it is solely on their behavior.
Now, I have judged on smell a couple of times.

I have met not nice pretty boys and I have met very nice not pretty guys.
The guy flashing the money probably doesn't have any and the one looking common might have millions.
You never know.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by Doonge

Wow it's even better!

Are there some problem you encounter with this?

I haven't seen any problem, but I'm not a publisher and I only test on Calibre, ADE and Kobo ereaders. But if an ePub ereader does the wrong thing with line-height: 0; then that is a bug in the ereader, not a limitation of the format.

[Doonge]

I haven't seen any problem, but I'm not a publisher and I only test on Calibre, ADE and Kobo ereaders. But if an ePub ereader does the wrong thing with line-height: 0; then that is a bug in the ereader, not a limitation of the format.

Thanks very much. I also test on Calibre, ADE and Kobo, so perhaps somebody with a kindle or other device will tell. But given how basic line-height is, I think it should be OK.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh for the love of books,
Do NOT ever tell me how I judge people. I am not that shallow. I have NEVER in my life judged a person on how they look. One cannot help how they look.
I try not to judge people but when I do, it is solely on their behavior.
Now, I have judged on smell a couple of times.

I have met not nice pretty boys and I have met very nice not pretty guys.
The guy flashing the money probably doesn't have any and the one looking common might have millions.
You never know.

I'm not interested in this conversation. You say one cannot help how they look, but it's only partially true. You have some control over how you look. Some part is innate, some other part is grooming.

If you don't want me to tell you you judge people by how they look, just end this conversation because you will not change my mind. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Doonge

Thanks very much. I also test on Calibre, ADE and Kobo, so perhaps somebody with a kindle or other device will tell. But given how basic line-height is, I think it should be OK.



I'm not interested in this conversation. You say one cannot help how they look, but it's only partially true. You have some control over how you look. Some part is innate, some other part is grooming.

If you don't want me to tell you you judge people by how they look, just end this conversation because you will not change my mind. Let's just agree to disagree.

Ok. You have a deal. We will agree to disagree. Though I do want to say, you brought back a funny memory of when someone had judged me. It was only after I got to know her that the comment she made the first time we ever met (I had never seen/noticed her before that) made sense.
She said I know exactly what you are like. I was wearing very conservative clothes when we met. So it wasn't my appearance that day.
She did later sort of apologize for the comment.
She had judged me by where she had seen me and the people I was with.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

...
What is absent from the major ePub rendering software (ADE) at the moment is any support for the smallcaps CSS attribute. ...

That is not the ebook format's fault. The ability to do good design is present.

One can, I agree, embed a proper smallcaps font, but this does not actually help when the user of the reading software chooses a different font for the body text.

Good ebook design should not depend on the use of a specific body text font.

If the user intentionally overrides aspects of the design it is their lookout.

Also, good pbook design requires using a specific font so why doesn't ebook design need the same requirement. No software can automagically generate a good small font rendering with any and all fonts. Adequate in some cases maybe, but not truly good.

This thread started in response to statements that extant ebooks in general are poorly designed and that new formats are needed to remedy this. The first, in my experience, is all to often true, but the second is totally false. The vast majority of "ugly" ebooks that I've encountered are ugly because lazy, inept, ignorant, and pinch-penny publishers fail to properly redesign their old pbook source files when creating ebooks.

Pbook designs don't convert to ebooks well using any automated software. Such conversions are only a starting place. The designs need to be altered by an skilled designer to fit the abilities of the ebook formats and the reality of the available readers hardware and software.

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by dwig

If the user intentionally overrides aspects of the design it is their lookout.

Also, good pbook design requires using a specific font so why doesn't ebook design need the same requirement. No software can automagically generate a good small font rendering with any and all fonts. Adequate in some cases maybe, but not truly good.

This thread started in response to statements that extant ebooks in general are poorly designed and that new formats are needed to remedy this. The first, in my experience, is all to often true, but the second is totally false. The vast majority of "ugly" ebooks that I've encountered are ugly because lazy, inept, ignorant, and pinch-penny publishers fail to properly redesign their old pbook source files when creating ebooks.

Pbook designs don't convert to ebooks well using any automated software. Such conversions are only a starting place. The designs need to be altered by an skilled designer to fit the abilities of the ebook formats and the reality of the available readers hardware and software.

Small caps is overall poorly supported (even outside of ebooks), for various reasons, and indeed I don't think the format is at fault.

I don't think good pbook need specific fonts in all areas. The "bread an butter" font (used for paragraphs) can have a lot of leeway, and I think font selection in ereaders is ok to good. I'm happy with my Kobo as I can add my own fonts (well, mobilereaders contributed fonts ahah =P). But it's nice to have specific fonts, sometimes, for dropcaps, chapter titles, and some peculiars parts here and there.

I'm not sure we need a new format, but I think there's place for improvements. In some areas, and notably drop caps, ebooks are lagging behind paper books. I'm personally not satisfied with the current tools and the current state of the format, and I worry that the traction seems very poor.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Doonge

We have all our flaws. I don't think what you meant was crystal clear in your head at the start of the topic, but that's not a flaw. Discussions, even pedantic ones, are there to sometimes have some fun and clear the air. Win win.

But it's silly to think your articles prove that no one could possibly be immune to their influence.

Oh for the love of idiocy.

DiapDealer has very consistently stated that he himself does not find covers to be an influencing factor, and once you started attacking him about it, tried several times to clarify to you, that he is not and never was saying everyone else does not find covers to be an influencing factor.

Give it a rest. The entire thread has gone downhill in quality ever since you started nitpicking his words.
Which is hard, because there wasn't much substance in the OP to begin with.

I don't think DiapDealer need defending, and you are not convincing me (even if you bring some very good points, I think they are overall unrelated).

... which would be because he (DiapDealer) was right, and in a way that cannot be argued with. Not that that stopped you.

I do judge people by their looks, as do everyone. I know it sounds bad, but fortunately we don't judge people ONLY by their looks. And as we are aware of it, we can try to compensate. Plus I'm not quantifying how much I judge by looks. Perhaps there's some very visual people as you say (I know you are right), and some less visual, but everyone judge using our senses (and vision remains an important sense for most people). People who are less visual are indeed human aswell, but they remain visual to some extent (unless blind or vision impairment, or perhaps even brain impairment! I work with neuro-opthalmologists ^^).

Well, sure. Stimuli are stimuli, and to be completely uninfluenced by something requires it not to exist. Think quantum butterflies.

But that is an extremely unhelpful point to make, and yet more proof that this thread is officially no longer interesting per your involvement in it.

Some stimuli are statistically nonexistent. hey exist on such a small scale, and make so little difference, that they might as well not exist.

And DiapDealer says that is his relationship with covers. And Cinisajoy says that is her relationship with physical looks.

Maybe she is discerning enough to genuinely find peoples' brains more interesting than their faces. Why is that such a foreign idea to you?
(And on that note, I have a somewhat creepy zombie internet stalker who apparently wants my brainzzzzzz. Hi, Cin! )

[Cinisajoy]

Hi schawtzy.
Do you need some help with that zombie?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rkomar

There is no design that someone doesn't think is ugly. At least ereaders let you disable some kinds of ugly if it's important to you. Losing control of the layout entirely would enrage some portion of readers for each ebook.

Sorry, but that's not true. Most kinds of ugly need to be edited before the Reader can display them well. Some can display ugly better than others, but i you really want to get rid of ugly, you'll need to edit the eBook.