Do we need a new word for "reading" on screens since it is a very different animal?

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Dan.......can you tell me why we need to differentiate between the two?

I can try. I feel that if there was a new word or term for e-reading or screen-reading, then scholars and neuroscientists studying these issues could get a better handle on what and how they report their findings. The new word is not for the general public. We don't need a new word for reading on screens, you are right and I agree. I feel there is a need to differentiate the two kinds of reading -- paper vs screen -- only for scholars and researchers studying the differences. That's all.

NOW what do you think?

[igorsk]

Do we really need four threads to discuss the same thing? You keep arguing for this ridiculous word as if your livelihood depended on it. Have you registered a trademark or bought some adwords and need to get some traffic?
PS: I would appreciate reduction in the use of bolded capitals, reeks too much of NLP to me.

[danbloom]

igorsk: my livelihood is not connected to this at all, i have no trademark or adwords on this, and i have no need for traffic. Traffic? People are so negative and cynical these days, ye gods why? I get like two visits per year on my blog, and both those visits are from me. I am not blogging for traffic. I am not selling anything. Sheesh! I am simply in a "discovery' period on this, and I enjoy the back and forth. Don't be so cynical, sir.

Reduction in use of bolded capitals is good suggestion. Will do.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by igorsk

Do we really need four threads to discuss the same thing? You keep arguing for this ridiculous word as if your livelihood depended on it. Have you registered a trademark or bought some adwords and need to get some traffic?
PS: I would appreciate reduction in the use of bolded capitals, reeks too much of NLP to me.

We would benefit from a new term for pointless carpet-bombing of Web-based forums with repetitive, fever-pitched, inexplicably urgent suggestion for benefiting from new terms.

Perhaps "beating a dead e-horse" or something.

[StaceyJMiller]

I'd vote for "e-reading." To me, that says it all. Then again, my brain is slowly morphing into mashed potatoes from all the digital reading I've been forced to do now that the subscription costs of the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald have just about tripled....

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

We would benefit from a new term for pointless carpet-bombing of Web-based forums with repetitive, fever-pitched, inexplicably urgent suggestion for benefiting from new terms.

Perhaps "beating a dead e-horse" or something.

Jason, I am surprised at your language here. There is no carpet-bombing go on, where, egads mate! And where is the fever pitch you speak of? Come on! And there is no talk of urgency on this, I always said that this will take ten to twenty years. I am really surprised at the negative, defensive reponses here. But it goes back I think to what Matt told me earlier:

"Danny.....Coming up with a new word for what appears to be an exisiting practice will always seem redundant to most people. .....But at this juncture anything that reminds us that there IS a change going on here, rather than allowing us to forget that our artifacts always have implications on our behviour and our thoughts, should be considered useful...... ....for now it is the discussion itself that’s crucial.”


Hold the fire. We are in this together.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by danbloom

I can tell you this: Kevin Kelly, the marerick founder of Wired magazine, who is writing an new book called TECHNIUM at www.kk.org, told me in a recent email re all this and the word screening for reading on screens, he said: "I'd be happy to see screening used as a verb for reading on screens."

With all the name-dropping (called an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy) you are coming dangerously close to rule #8 here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...in-to-Poe.html

[danbloom]

ardeegee, if you want me to go away, I will.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

"No," we don't "need" a new "word" for "reading on screens."

Reading is reading is reading. It is utterly irrelevant if you're reading off of a stone tablet, a papyrus scroll, a hardcover, a newspaper, an ebook reader or a PDA.

[badbob001]

Care to explain this vague benefit that you are referring to? Is there a specific future problem or confusion that you would want addressed? Would future historians see such a sharp and distinct cutoff between reading prior to electronic media and after? Perhaps if there is a massive solar flare and everyone on earth is instantly evolved to a form that can 'read' in a totally different way, but I see our ways of reading as having changed gradually over time. Perhaps if you can explain the context of the issue and why you expect such ideas should be condensed into a single word or phrase.

Most of us just read with our eyes, despite the change of media, be it tablet, scroll, book, screen, epaper... it's pretty much the same human process. Would you suggest tablet-ting, scroll-ing, book-ing, screen-ing, epaper-ing, and perhaps an eventual brain-ing?

As for 'write', 'type' and 'compose', it's just simple word choice. No doubt when the typewriter came out, it was so new that they needed the word 'type' to be clear that something should not be written with a pen or pencil. I see the return to the word 'write' as society's way to reduce clutter from the language. I don't think you're going to pick up pen and paper if someone asks you to write them an email. I imagine you're already formulating a reply with the words digitizer pen and e-paper... And sometimes new words are created purely for marketing to distinguish one product from a similar product and not to signify something unique.

UPDATE: just realized you, on one day, have created four threads on pretty much the same topic posted. I believe this is what jason is referring to with the term 'carpet bombing'.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by danbloom

DaveS, I didn't say a new word is REQUIRED. I just asked, might perhaps maybe a new word be BENEFICIAL to scholars and researchers studying these issues, in order to different the two reading modes, paper and screen. BENEFICIAL is the key word, and beneficial not to you or me, but to scholars and researchers. Yes no maybe?

THAT is the question.

If THEY need a new word in THEIR jargon then it is a question for THEM to answer. All the different fields of science and engineering have their own jargon, but specialized jargon seldom makes it into the general language, probably for good reason. If it is beneficial for them they are probably bright enough to work it out on their own. That would seem to make this whole line of questioning moot, IMHO.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by danbloom

Jason, I am surprised at your language here. There is no carpet-bombing go on, where, egads mate! And where is the fever pitch you speak of? Come on! And there is no talk of urgency on this, I always said that this will take ten to twenty years. I am really surprised at the negative, defensive reponses here. But it goes back I think to what Matt told me earlier:

"Danny.....Coming up with a new word for what appears to be an exisiting practice will always seem redundant to most people. .....But at this juncture anything that reminds us that there IS a change going on here, rather than allowing us to forget that our artifacts always have implications on our behviour and our thoughts, should be considered useful...... ....for now it is the discussion itself that’s crucial.”


Hold the fire. We are in this together.

No, we are not in this together. Almost all people on this thread are telling you NO, but you keep pushing and pushing your agenda. I am with Igorsk on this, you have an agenda. And please don't insult us with statements, "but that's not what I said", actions speak louder then words. You are pushing.
As far as original topic ---- NO.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by badbob001

Care to explain this vague benefit that you are referring to? Is there a specific future problem or confusion that you would want addressed? .

Yes, badbob001, glad you asked the question. The benefit might perhaps maybe be for neuroscientists and scholars studying MRI brain scan images of reading on paper vs reading on screens, to see if different parts of the brain light up when paper reading and when screen-reading. In fact, some scientists are doing these tests now. Read Dr Maryanne Wolf's book titled "Proust and the Squid' or just google it to get a summary of what she has done so far. Dr Gary Small at UCLA is also involved in siimilar research.

So the benefit of a new term would be for these people...when they write up their reports. That's all. It's not a big deal, and it's nothing to get so defensive about!

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by dmikov

No, we are not in this together. Almost all people on this thread are telling you NO, but you keep pushing and pushing your agenda. I am with Igorsk on this, you have an agenda. And please don't insult us with statements, "but that's not what I said", actions speak louder then words. You are pushing.
As far as original topic ---- NO.

dmikov, the anger and fury here is telling. I have no idea where it is coming from. If you had read all my earlier comments, you would have seen that from the very beginning I predicted that out of 100 commenters, 98 would be negative and two would be positive. We still have some time to go before those two people surface....

[danbloom]

and dmikov, if you think i have an agenda, pray tell, tell me what you think or feel my agenda is. I for one would like to know. I in fact have no agenda. What on Earth are you talking about. My agenda? An agenda? Tell me what you think it is.