Kindle Page Number Proposal

[pruss]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Only in the sense that were equating a screen with a page. Since we're reading screen by screen I think it makes sense to track location by screens.

I don't think this should be tied to a particular generation of device and e-reader software. The screen-by-screen method is tied to the present-day limitations of e-ink hardware, limitations which no doubt will disappear in a few years. Many users may still prefer to view page-by-page rather than scrolling (prefer a scrolling model myself, with page-up/down keys that scroll one screenful minus one line), but that's a matter of user preference.

[markbot]

1. I think they need to keep the location numbers. location X out of Y, possibly with a progress bar. they need this for academic reference.

2. and I think they could do dynamic page numbers based on the font size... screen X of Y. this could be a user options. i guess it shouldn't be that difficult to calculate and display either.

3. if they really want to be ambitious they could continue to do the corresponding physical page numbers, as they do with some books. this is the best overall but takes the most effort. because physical page sizes differ, it is also not perfect though.

I am actually fine with option 1. I just use the following formula:

location number / 20= page number

This is about 2 kindle screen turns.

[haydnfan]

Originally Posted by markbot

I am actually fine with option 1. I just use the following formula:

location number / 20= page number

This is about 2 kindle screen turns.

I got that from you on a post you made quite awhile ago. It works very well for me and cured my location number confusion!

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by readingwonder

I would be more tempted towards Kindle if all the Kindle books were formatted how the epub books are. Though for my personal preference, I prefer the openness and universality of epub.

Most are in my experience. I find that some books are badly formatted, but chapter breaks are almost always done properly except in those instances where a publisher has not bothered to do any proofreading and just ran a file through an automatic converter and considered that good enough.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by pruss

I don't think this should be tied to a particular generation of device and e-reader software. The screen-by-screen method is tied to the present-day limitations of e-ink hardware

That's a good point, and that's why I think 2 methods are needed. One ultimate absolute location that will be the same regardless of the format or device, which can be used for referencing and syncing. Another method needs to be implemented on a device level that gives the reader an easy, intuitive way to gauge their position and progress through a book.

Kindle's 'location' number works great for referencing a specific place in a book, but for me as a reader it doesn't give me the information I want.

For current e-ink devices I want a 'screen x of y' progress indicator. I don't know how to solve the problem for any scrolling medium...I also can't imagine reading on anything other than discreet 'pages', but if someone comes up with something better than current e-readers I'll certainly be interested.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by markbot

they could continue to do the corresponding physical page numbers, as they do with some books. this is the best overall but takes the most effort. because physical page sizes differ, it is also not perfect though.

I'm interested to know why you think this is the best way. I don't agree at all. As an ebook reader the pagination of a paper edition of the book I'm reading means nothing to me, and doesn't really give me any information about my progress through the book in relation to the amount of text on each page, and it's counter-intuitive for the page number to change every 1.7 'pages' of the Kindle screen.

It seems to me to be forcing the Kindle edition to be a digital version of a paper book rather than a book in a digital medium in its own right.

Of course, 'real' page numbers still have use for referencing, but I feel that is something that will become less relevant as ebooks become the norm and paper books the exception.

I just use the following formula:

location number / 20= page number

This is about 2 kindle screen turns.

I don't think that's easier or more intuitive than 'Screen 5 of 240', which is exactly how page numbers work on the paper books we've all lived with up until a few years ago and also takes advantage of the digital medium's ability to calculate these things for us based on font/screen sizes.

[ApK]

While I get that some folks are really tied to the number of screen turns and the deep-seeded familiarity of the ideas of 'turning pages', and nothing else will ever satisfy them, for everyone else, I really don't get what y'all don't get about locations. It doesn't matter if a location is one character long, 5 characters (which would be standard word count) 128, or 1024. It's some number out of some bigger number. Just because on the kindle it's a bigger number than you are used to seeing in a paperback, what difference does it it make? Why divide by or whatever? If you at location 122 of 21232 you're at the beginning. If you're at local 20223, you're near the end. Click one page and you'll get a sense for how much the location changes each time. Why is this difficult or counter intuitive?

And for those of you who are craving screen turn count, don't forget to demand that every ebook producer marks the end of the main text before the end matter in a standard way, as someone suggest earlier, because you'll all be so upset when you find your book really ends on "screen-page" 250 of 350 and you find that your whole sense of "where you are in the book and how many clicks until the end" was wrong the whole time.

[DiapDealer]

One arbitrarily chosen numbering system is as good as the next in my opinion. I'm quite adaptable. But if given a choice, I prefer the system that stays consistent across devices/apps regardless of any user customization such as font-sizes or words per line.

I just don't see much difference between page 40 of 350 and location 770 of 7000, especially when there's a percentage/progress bar (that even indicates where the chapter-breaks will occur).

And I don't remember ever being tripped up at all by locations when I bought my first Kindle. The system just seemed natural to me: accurate, specific, and universally independent of user settings. *shrugs*

[kennyc]

Well, I find it easier to remember a page number than a location. Generally a page number for a typical book is in the three digits, locations are more and too big to remember.

[DiapDealer]

Why on earth would I need to remember a page number (or location number) in an ebook?

[pruss]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why on earth would I need to remember a page number (or location number) in an ebook?

To tell a friend where something in the book is?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pruss

To tell a friend where something in the book is?

Why would I need to call that number up from memory? Do you memorize all the page numbers of your favorite passages?

I'd look them up (using bookmarks and highlights) and pass the number(s) along to my friend. No memorization required.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why would I need to call that number up from memory? Do you memorize all the page numbers of your favorite passages?

Not I: my memory is terrible. But I actually think there are people who do have the page numbers of notable passages memorized. I remember my Kant professor in grad school. You'd ask him about something, and he'd instantly open his copy of the First Critique to where Kant said something relevant. Very impressive. :-) I don't know if he had the page numbers memorized, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me. You work with an important book enough, and things stick in your head, at least if you have a better memory for numbers than I do. Compare how a lot of people have bible verse numbers memorized for many significant verses.

My feeling is that there is a divide between the needs of casual readers who tend to proceed linearly through a text and serious students of a text. Of course, there are way more of the former, so it makes sense for the Kindle to be optimized for them.

I'd look them up (using bookmarks and highlights) and pass the number(s) along to my friend. No memorization required.

First, that presupposes that the friend has an ebook reader. Second, absent more standardization than we have, it presupposes that the friend's ebook reader app is of the same brand. Third, the fewer digits there are, the less chance of scrambling in oral transmission. Fourth, there is a good chance one at least has to put the number in short term memory for a few seconds as one tells one's friend what the number is.

Of course, page numbers aren't perfect, either, since they may be tied to a different edition of the book than one has (though one may be able to order a different edition through interlibrary loan).

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by ApK

While I get that some folks are really tied to the number of screen turns and the deep-seeded familiarity of the ideas of 'turning pages', and nothing else will ever satisfy them, for everyone else, I really don't get what y'all don't get about locations. It doesn't matter if a location is one character long, 5 characters (which would be standard word count) 128, or 1024. It's some number out of some bigger number.

Using screen numbers as pages is not looking backwards to a paper book, it's using a well-established way of tracking your progress on a device that actually works in the same way as a paper book (i.e. a screen is equivalent to a page).

We don't measure long distances in metres, we measure in kilometres (or miles) because that suits the usual numbers we deal with. People are better at dealing with numbers below 1000 (that's why we moved on from megabytes to gigabytes to terabytes). When numbers start to get lots of zeroes people can't fully intuit their meaning.

Do you also think the average consumer would prefer locations over screen numbers? Would they understand locations immediately (in a way that they can use and rely on them immediately)? I don't think so; and I would be very surprised if the concept of screen numbers confused anybody.

Although the maths required is very simple, the average person can intuitively estimate '34 of 157' much better than '457 of 3120'.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Using screen numbers as pages is not looking backwards to a paper book, it's using a well-established way of tracking your progress on a device that actually works in the same way as a paper book (i.e. a screen is equivalent to a page).

We don't measure long distances in metres, we measure in kilometres (or miles) because that suits the usual numbers we deal with. People are better at dealing with numbers below 1000 (that's why we moved on from megabytes to gigabytes to terabytes). When numbers start to get lots of zeroes people can't fully intuit their meaning.

Do you also think the average consumer would prefer locations over screen numbers? Would they understand locations immediately (in a way that they can use and rely on them immediately)? I don't think so; and I would be very surprised if the concept of screen numbers confused anybody.

Although the maths required is very simple, the average person can intuitively estimate '34 of 157' much better than '457 of 3120'.

Exactly.