NYT: Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Demas

Cost matters, rich media matters, power matters ...

You're simply projecting what you want from a device onto everyone. I have zero use for rich media on my reading device, for instance. And the rapidly growing ereader market disagrees with your analysis, quite sharply.

In other words, if you were right nobody would be buying ereaders. And yet the main constraint on their sales has been screen supply! They've been selling out...

[Demas]

badbob001, if you think I'm giving e-ink short shrift, I'm not... it has its advantages, but it also is a dead end. EpaperCentral.com is dedicated to e-paper technologies and advocacy, in their recent analysis of the dominant technology (e-ink), they had this to say:

http://www.epapercentral.com/can-ein...chnologies.htm

Originally Posted by epapercentral

The films on the market at the moment from E Ink are black and white. The real future of e-paper is color. People want moving video, faster refresh rates, cheaper devices with more features, but the first step to most of these is color. The main drawback is that E Ink technology has only been proven for 2 particle systems giving just black and white films.

Even if you could incorporate other colors, a mixture of either red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow, black and white particles would be needed. To get the full color spectrum, at least 3 colors, plus white or black are needed. Recent announcements on color displays use color filters over a black/white display. These look washed out, usually producing pastel shades.

What does this mean for the future of E Ink type devices? They work well now, they have a dominant market share, but the technology does not seem well suited for color applications. The particles and films described above can be found in patents over 10 years old and not much has changed in the patents on the synthesis during this time. Improvements made in the patents are on bistability, switching speeds and lower switching voltages, but the question of full color devices is still open.

Until we see this, electrophoretic displays of this type will always be in a weak position when colored technologies enter the market this year. However, history has shown us that when technologies go head to head it is often a battle won in the marketing departments. If this is to be the case with e-paper, judging by the current market, expect E Ink to be here to stay.

Like the NYT article and Popular Science article and even this one from e-paper advocacy site, they indicate that there isn't really an eyestrain divide rooted in science, but that marketing and subjective preference rule the day. This is consistent with e-ink not taking off until the Kindle 2 despite existing for a decade prior and consistent with OEMs with a netbook-like ethic looking to exploit heretofore tiny market before it goes extinct.

There are two points couched in this statement, the first is extinction (or at least endangerment) is coming- this is happening to netbooks as UL laptops grow lighter and less expensive and smartphones and smartbooks (and now slates) invade their space by growing more powerful. While the agile companies can still fight in this space, a lot of the big dogs have pulled out (and moved on to slates/smartbooks/etc) because the category is losing meaning and margin (once you start packing in Win7 licenses, etc) to the point that some netbooks are even subsidized (like the Nokia Booklet)!

The second is the notebook ethic, of foreign competition undercutting a market leader after they've expended the money to develop the brand/market. Although embarrassingly scorned earlier in the thread, the OLPC project sold the world on the concept and their upfront investment was what enabled the netbook phenomena to penetrate the brand conscious USA [the PopSci article states this idea as well]. Apple did the same with the iPod (large drive MP3 players existed prior, just no strong branding) and now the iPad (again, PMPs/MIDs exist now, but Americans only buy brands). Once Amazon used an old, existing technology but paired it with the strength of their brand (and Whispernet and pricing), they were able to create a market despite (despite an existing tech; likewise iPad interest gives newfound hope to MID OEMs of relaunching/upgrading their devices now that Apple sold America on the concept). With the market created by the brand, an explosion of foreign e-readers enter, not because of measurable consumer demand, but because it would be foolish for them not to freeride on Amazon's work... the netbook ethic.

More concisely. A fad.

That doesn't mean that e-readers are doomed or wrong or unenjoyable to own. The cream-green spinach displayed Gameplay was obviously going to be phased out, but nonetheless great to own and enjoy. But it does mean it's going to feel the same squeeze of the netbook as multipurpose devices grow lighter, smaller, more powerful, longer lasting, and cheaper [and with better display tech, which again, to me is far from dispositive but apparently a sacred cow for others].

[DawnFalcon]

Yea, because some random "advocacy" site which seems to have a clear bias of it's own from even a cursory check, and some popsci articles are more important than the actual peer-reviewed studies which have been done. Oh, wait.

ereaders had certainly "taken off" well before the Kindle 2, that's both an Amazon and US-centric view of the market. Again, until very recently constraint on ereader takeup was not market demand, but screen production and hence it's very hard to judge the size of the actual potential ereader market (except to say it's larger than the single-digit million device shipped).

Moreover, Netbooks are actually growing, not shrinking market. Ultra-light laptops have allways been, and remain, expensive devices with considerably higher specifications than netbooks - larger IPS LCD screens with LED lighting compared to Netbook's smaller TN LCD screens, for instance.

The OLPC miserably failed to bring the netbook to general conciousness, and neither was the Classmate PC especially successful at that - it was ASUS with their Eee PC which brought the class to general attention and they've sold heavily as a direct result of ASUS's actions.

"large drive MP3 players existed prior, just no strong branding"

iRiver. Whose players are and always have been technically superior to the iPod, afaik. They don't have the same kind of advertising muscle, sure...

You make a lot of statements, but the market simply isn't behaving as you state it is. Your constant message of doom for eReaders is just more of the same - if you were a market analyst, you'd be out on your rump very quickly.

[Demas]

Originally Posted by Myself

I'm not [giving e-ink short shrift] it has its advantages, but it also is a dead end. . . . That doesn't mean that e-readers are doomed or wrong or unenjoyable to own.

So in my corner...

"Netbooks are dead. Long live the notebook."
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=3348

It’s important to remember that the netbook had its origins in the OLPC...

Those little computers were designed for school children in the developing world (hence the little keyboards, which weren’t so bad for tiny fingers). These machines cut corners on hardware in order to create super-cheap PCs in the $100-$300 range that could be widely deployed overseas in places that had extremely limited budgets.

But, then a funny thing happened. People in North America and Europe and Japan started ordering these netbooks. . . .

While netbook sales are expected to reach 25-30 million units in 2009, much of what is being counted as a netbook is looking much more like a standard notebook. Thus, I’d propose that it’s time to kill the term “netbook” altogether. It only serves to confuse buyers and it was a phenomenon that has clearly run its course.

- Jason Hiner, Editor in Chief of TechRepublic
- Lou Silverstein, a fellow of the Society for Information Display, consulting for VCD Sciences.
- Mary Lou Jepsen, PhD, EE, cancer survivor, holography, OLPC founder, Pixel Qi CEO
- IEEE/EETimes nominating Pixel Qi screen “the most creative electronics design of the year”.
- Popular Science with Senior Associate Editor Lauren Aaronson who runs PopSci’s Best of What’s New Awards (and nominated Pixel Qi).
- New York Times with Nick Bilton, NYT's Lead Technology Writer
- Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the ophthalmology department at the University of North Carolina
- Michael Bove, director of the Consumer Electronics Laboratory at the M.I.T. Media Lab
- Professor Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University
- Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard’s Information Surfaces Lab
- E Paper Central with W Y Scott, PhD Chemistry, e-paper expert
- Gizmodo

Originally Posted by Gizmodo

In a battle against e-ink, which has so many obvious limitations, this [3Qi] really is the projected winner. We still need to see this thing in a device that's capable of running for "days" without a recharge, but we are hoping for that soon.

Source: Gizmodo

Originally Posted by Gizmodo

E-ink is a great digital tool for emulating what books were. But a horse with rollershoes can't keep up with the automobile, so why should we expect a digital book to keep up with modern media habits?

I fell in love with the Kindle last year . . . I'm giving up on it. I am waiting for a tablet. Same size, different priorities

- Engadget

Originally Posted by Engadget

One thing's for sure -- monochrome electronic ink displays are not the future of e-readers. If you ask us, the smart money is on multi-purpose devices running hybrid displays from Pixel Qi (or similar) like Notion Ink's Adam. Not only does this avoid lock in to a single content provider, but you maintain full Internet access with the ability to subscribe to materials from Skiff, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Blio, Google, and iTunes, for example, while enjoying the type of rich multimedia experiences that main stream media publications are keen to pursue.

Kindle, and its E Ink peers, are officially on notice.

Clearly, EiCs, PhDs, vision experts, advocacy groups, respected publications, and the two largest technology blogs in the world have no clue.

Although for my part, my lesson is that I need to remember to login after I clear my cookies so that DawnFalcon's posts stay ignored because it really was too easy to debunk (an empty challenge to a lack of authority while providing none of his own) and a waste of my time.

Once again, dmaul1114, thanks for the wise advice.

[DawnFalcon]

Ahh, revisionist history.

The format wasn't new. There were a few devices around, but they were inevitably overpriced and underspecced - "subnotebooks", such as the Toshiba Libretto. It was ASUS who brought the netbook as a hardware format to general usage, because of the OLPC policy of not offering itself on the open market, leaving it little general interest in hardware terms, meant that most of the focus was on it's (now-abandoned) educational goals instead.

And the Sugar Project, which runs on standard netbooks, is the project carrying on the educational work. Not OLPC.

You haven't debunked anything. Your corporate affiliation is clear, and your posts are no more than a reflection of how badly their marketing strategy is working. Moreover, Engadget and Gizmodo have never ever liked epaper, and they've been consistently wrong on it's popularity and future. Their "ooh shiny" viewpoint is simply not the one held by many people who want an epaper reader.

[jackau]

There should be no arguement over which screen type cause eye strain.
LCDs with backlight and frequent refresh rate causes eye strain. The major issue is the toll on eyes' ability to focus.

The older the reader is the worst their eye focus is. Therefore when read on TFT / LED LCDs, our eyes work harder to adjust.

THis was not a problem to young people, but for those first / 2nd generation IT people, it is highly apparent, I work at a IT place and the verdict was over whelming, the LED / TFT screens are bad for reading books! However it does gets better if the text was projected on a 52 inch TV runing 1366 X 768 and fonts set at type 20 or something!

The savior is E-ink screen, it does not strain our eyes.

So a 11 inch E-ink grayscale ereader with 1Ghz processor, powerful enough to process pdf with fast zoom and browse, weight under 200 gram is my dream ereader.

[DawnFalcon]

Woah, that's rather utopian and not really supported by the science, jackau.

LCD's "refresh" in itself isn't generally an issue, because unlike a CRT they don't themselves flicker. The flicker of the CCFL or LED backlight is indeed an issue, but that's not the same thing.

Moreover, the lighting issue is not really one of "backlight", it's about the differences between ambient lighting and the screen brightness and colour balance. Displays which depend on reflected light have an inherent advantage there, but that's partly offset by the relatively poor colour balance of e-ink screens and the fact as non-lit screens you tend to strain your eyes to read them in dim environments.

How sensitive people's eyes are to these issues also varies quite dramatically - if e-ink screens are great for you, good, but please don't assume that people are universally uncomfortable with reading off LCD screens either.

[MikeRo]

First off, I am not in the "if it glows, it blows" camp because I have not tried all the various glowing devices. All I can comment on is the difference I notice between reading on my E-ink device and my LCD screens. For me, at my age, E-ink wins hands down.

Judging by a few of the comments here, some folks may not have read the New York Times article so let me quote the most relevant section.

First of all: doctors say that reading on a screen won’t cause any harm.

“Most of what our mothers told us about our eyes was wrong,” said Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the ophthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Sitting close to a television, or computer screen, isn’t bad for our eyes. It’s a variety of other factors that can cause physical fatigue.”

For example, the ergonomics of reading screens and the lack of blinking when we stare at them play a big role in eye fatigue. “The current problem with reading on screens is that we need to adjust our bodies to our computer screens, rather than the screens adjusting to us,” Dr. Meredith said.

Note exactly what Dr. Meredith says: "...we need to adjust our bodies to our computer screens, rather than the screens adjusting to us." Why should I adjust my body to read on a screen when there already exists a solution that works for me?

Which brings up another point: Good enough technology. A big reason in the exploding popularity of netbooks (or notebooks or subnotebooks) is that a 10 inch screen with 1GB of ram and an Atom processor is "good enough" for casual surfing, checking email, etc. For me, my E-ink device is good enough for my purposes. Others may want more, but I don't need more at this time.

All that being said, I would look at a colour device that allows me to read magazines, newspapers, etc if it was reasonably priced and as comfortable to my eyes as E-ink. Yet I would still use my E-ink device for reading novels, etc.

[jackau]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Woah, that's rather utopian and not really supported by the science, jackau.

How sensitive people's eyes are to these issues also varies quite dramatically - if e-ink screens are great for you, good, but please don't assume that people are universally uncomfortable with reading off LCD screens either.

i agree, but facts are facts, not every one on earth requires e-ink paper, as by far many of them don't need to work with a LCD monitor for 4 hours a day then go home to another hour or two of Monitors / TV.

That is an industry issue, but it is cross board. ALL my friends and work mate has the same problem, just level of serious vary accoring to age and usage.

I have talked with a few eye specilist and they told me peoples in the IT industry tent to have a lot more eye issue than other industry.

The next generation, our kids is likely to stick with monitors of all kind even more than we do regard less indutry they be working in, i guess only new technologies can prevent further eye issues they will have when they got older.

There will always be people able to read a book on a LED LCD with out issues, just like the selected few with 2.0 vision of a military pilot.

Users of E-readers know what limitation non backlight e-readers have, but the adventage appear to outweight the drawback.

The fact: I got now is E-ink type technology solve eye strain issues for people in IT industry.

[badbob001]

Originally Posted by Demas

By excluding the very factors that allow something into a consumers hands you've somewhat undermined the discussion you want to have, which I presume, you only want to come out as e-ink.

I wanted to have a discussion about good displays for reading, and since the thread was about eye strain, I wanted to talk about good displays for reading while limiting eye strain. I thought screen contrast and brightness would be important factors towards that discussion, as opposed to other things...

But this thread seems to be all over the place:

• E-ink is a narrow focus dead-end technology
• Netbook vs notebook vs tablet vs reader vs smartphone
• Pixelqi is new and better than e-ink
• Multi-purpose vs narrow-purpose device
• The answer to any request is 'yes' if you have money.

It seems like you have a lot to say on several related topics but do you think it would be more focused to start a new thread instead?

Originally Posted by Demas

But in any case, if you want to ignore cost restraints, LCD can provide the closest paper experience if purpose built to do that... it's just cost prohibitive. LCD can do it, but it'd be stupid to do it... you'd add diffuse layer on the glass to scatter light, you'd build a crazy expensive substrate for perfect viewing angles, you'd get perfect whites and blacks, etc... but you'd also go broke for a product no one wants at that price.

When I said I didn't want to talk about cost, I meant to keep the discussion on topic in regards to eye strain. I also did carefully mention to limit the discussion to technologies close or in consumer hands, which means something that exists and can be afforded.

So paper is great for reading, no one can afford to build a LCD display to look as good as paper, and E-ink doesn't look as good as paper (again, without going nuts on cost). But which of the non-paper technologies is closer to paper, assuming paper is the gold standard for comfortable reading?

You seem to favor pixelqi and not like e-ink, but that doesn't necessarily mean those two display technologies are competing in the exact same space. Pixelqi LCD may displace older LCD displays in some devices, such as notebooks, but it does not necessarily mean it will displace e-ink in reader devices (maybe some other display technology will). I don't think we yet have a single display technology that is suitable for all usage conditions.

I wonder how do the contrast levels of e-ink and an unback-lit pixelqi display compare in various outdoor and indoor lighting conditions?

You probably can't answer all of my questions on pixelqi displays, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to provoke you. I still need those questions answered to properly compare the two display technologies for my needs and it's likely I'll have to wait for real devices to come out first.

[Demas]

Originally Posted by MikeRo

Note exactly what Dr. Meredith says: "...we need to adjust our bodies to our computer screens, rather than the screens adjusting to us." Why should I adjust my body to read on a screen when there already exists a solution that works for me?

I think what you're taking for granted is that even with reflective "tech", let's just use paper for example, you adjust your body to the "display technology" to suit you because you have no other choice. (It's not like paper has a dial, you have to adjust its angle your posture, etc. to get optimal lighting) The only difference between adjusting the brightness on emissive technology and tilting the paper just so for the right lighting is that the latter is more intuitive because its how we see everything.

That's part of the reason clinical trials would be moot because the issues don't lie in variations in the display tech- which is fully understood- but in reading habits which would be constrained or controlled for a meaningful study and which all experts agree is dispositive/controlling. You force people to blink, look away, use eyedrops, and receive the exact same level of nits and you get the unsurprising result that light is light.

Which brings up another point: Good enough technology. . . . For me, my E-ink device is good enough for my purposes.

Spot on and simultaneously why e-ink based devices are niche (long form reading primarily, luxury item with long battery life... for people who live in houses with plenty of access to electricity and who can afford books and the time to read long form), but still market viable for now. Nothing has the same form factor, battery life, and functionality combined, but tech is getting closer.

Originally Posted by badbob001

I wanted to have a discussion about good displays for reading

Without a stacked deck the only issues are habits and pattern recognition... if your habits are poor, eyestrain (which isn't equivalent to eye damage, mind you) occurs with any device and with good habits, are largely moot. With respect to pattern recognition, LCD has better fidelity (arguably moot of e-ink is "good enough"), but e-ink has more comfortable texture (which matters only psychosomatically and for viewing angles; again the latter moot with good habits). In other words, barring an unexamined assumption that paper is the gold standard, there's no particular advantage to e-ink with respect to eyestrain.

Although we could take a step back and see if paper is all that great. The AOA reports that ANY close-up work results in a proclivity for near-sightedness [that is, real, lifetime chronic eye damage as opposed to mere temporary eyestrain] and cites book reading specifically. And just broadly speaking, those who work with paper 18 hours a day tend to have worse eyesight than those who work with screens 18 hours a day... but again, this relates to behavior. The person working with a screen likely has artificial and back lighting the entire period whereas the paper reader shifts from dawn to noon to dusk and perhaps engages in bad ambient lighting behavior when shifting from daylight to artificial lighting... so the controlling factor is more behavior than display tech.

I wonder how do the contrast levels of e-ink and an unback-lit pixelqi display compare in various outdoor and indoor lighting conditions?

In exchange for responsiveness, video, color hinting, 256 shades, higher DPI, and high refresh... essentially, "good enough". YouTube has hidef video of the latest off-the line (no longer just prototypes) units for show in various lighting conditions from CES '10. They also have direct Kindle comparisons but those are older (June '09) videos using prototype displays (<10 produced in a lot) with admitted issues. You can "see" for yourself.

Alternatively wait for MWC (Mobile World Conference) info or the products themselves (which can still be improved and iterated... the electronics alone can reduce their draw from 0.5 watts to 0.1 watts if there wasn't such a rush to market).

And for Dawn

Originally Posted by PopSci Feature reaffirming actual history

OLPC had one undeniable effect: It led directly to the advent of the small, stripped-down, inexpensive “netbook,” a sector that now makes up about 20 percent of all laptop sales. Once the nonprofit showed that it could build a compact, functional laptop for less than $200, nearly every other computer maker followed suit, and the gadget-buying public snatched them up. Since its debut in 2007, OLPC has delivered more than a million computers.

[BuddyBoy]

I do prefer E-Ink - and jumped from the 500 to the 505 for the slight increase in quality and contrast, and sent back the 700 for a similar slight decrease. I can and do sometimes read on my computer or my iPhone, but find the brightness and glaring contrast to be a limiter before getting sore eyes - though that could be because I'm behind a computer most of the day.

Of course, if I go back 5 years I was happily reading late into the night on my GEB 1150, a back-lit monochrome lcd - in fact my main complaint wasn't eyestrain but insufficient battery life, meaning I must have been reading many hours in a sitting. I don't think my eyes were that much older just 5 years ago. But the GEB1150 did have a nice selection of brightness levels which really helped keep the eyestrain in check.

I would guess that the human eye can adapt to many ways of gathering information. Some might be more idea than others - I'm not sure I could give up E-Ink having grown used to it - but I'm sure each has it's boosters.

[LDBoblo]

Yep lots of geeks and IT guys develop eye strain issues. So do a lot of book worms. So do a lot of people who focus continuously for a long time at a fixed, relatively close surface, whether that surface is reflective or emissive.

Yep, it probably is worse if it's a flickering emissive display out of harmony with the ambient light, which is quite a frequent problem for many people I'd suspect. The fixed nature of conventional screens can also be a factor.

Of course, there are a lot of people who have horrible hand/wrist pain from playing the piano or typing at the keyboard too. While I'm sure a lot of people in all realms complain and blame the device, my own (merely anecdotal) experience has been that piano people blame themselves more, while office/tech people blame the qwerty keyboard more.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Demas

I think what you're taking for granted is that even with reflective "tech", let's just use paper for example, you adjust your body to the "display technology" to suit you...

Yes, and one issue with eyestrain and backlit screens is you DON'T make that adjustment naturally.

With respect to pattern recognition, LCD has better fidelity

Link to the study proving this, thanks.

In other words, barring an unexamined assumption that paper is the gold standard, there's no particular advantage to e-ink with respect to eyestrain.

Except the natural advantages ANY reflective format has, sure. Again, closer matching to ambient light is an advantage in preventing eyestrain.


And no, your revisionist history is simply incorrect. Your trying to prop up OLPC simply because of it's relationship to PixelQi is downright amusing, mind you. ASUS began work on the Eee long after the OLPC project started, were done earlier, and have delivered tens of millions of units, including several million to third world governments, on OLPC's current hardware focus they'd do better buying stock Eee's and selling them on.

[Demas]

Badbob01 wanted v. Kindle pics... you can find them here (same screen in all pics, h-scroll warning):







Note that these are older prototype screens with more "sparkle" than the production models seen at MWC.