NYT: Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain?

[Demas]

Originally Posted by LJ Miehe

eInk beats LCD/LED hands down, at this point it does not compare when you are trying to emulate paper.

Still debatable, as the substance of this thread shows. The white to black ratio, color/greyscale, text rendering, DPI, etc. are closer to quality print in LCDs than with e-ink. Whether or not that translates into "readability" or whether paper is even the gold standard to begin with is more taste (and bad reading habits) than science.

Even if you accept paper as a gold standard, no one takes a paper document and puts it through processes in order to make it more like e-ink... and many of those gaps are where LCD is superior.

What all scientists agree on is that good habits matter more than anything else... so even if LCD didn't exist and your only option was e-ink- or paper for that matter- you STILL should be reading with breaks, appropriate lighting, etc. Given that those good habits all but eliminate eyestrain together, it makes the display itself somewhat immaterial.

I'm not sure- "The best way for reading badly"- is really an advantage to be proud of!

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by LJ Miehe

I will have to give you that correction to my point, now after thinking about it, is form factor and the portability is the most important but the screen technology is the second most important element of a eReader device. eInk beats LCD/LED hands down, at this point it does not compare when you are trying to emulate paper.

Form factor is much more important to me. It needs to be small, light and comfortable to hold and read (and write if we're talking a tablet like the iPad).

Screen tech isn't so much an issue for me personally as I seldom every read for more than 1-2 hours so eyestrain isn't an issue. Being younger helps as well. Still I like e-ink for my leisure reading, but more for battery life than the eye strain issue.

But for my academic work, I find e-ink completely useless. Any stylus mark up options suck, as the display is so laggy, (and I highlight and scribble notes on everything I read for work). Page refesh is to slow to use it to flip through and find sections when working on an article or lecture etc., which is my main use of academic books and research articles.

So I'm waiting for a tablet with an LCD or OLED, or Pixel QI screen on that front so I get the mark up ability and instant page refresh needs I need for my work reading. And I'd prefer the device have video capabilities, net surfing, PDA etc. as I'd get more use out of it. Vs. my Kindle which rarely leaves the night stand as I mostly read it in bed.

So screen tech all has it's pros and cons, and I have little patience for people who can't see the use for non e-ink screens. They may not have a use for them, but many others do. To each their own. Use what you like and don't worry about what others prefer or get into pointless debates over what screen technology is "best." It's all subjective, and thus a waste of time to try to speak in absolutes.

[Demas]

dmaul brings up the excellent point of academic reading which mirrors my needs for legal reading- contracts, research, cases, memorandum, etc.- interactive, non-linear reading that is both short and long form. And when I do kick back to read for pleasure, occasionally it is long form (for me, biographies), but typically it's journals, newspaper, or magazines which have been itching to give a rich media experience (whether they squandered the opportunity presented by the web is a separate debate, but the slate form with touch seems to be justification enough for them), these concepts for example:

Mag+:
http://vimeo.com/8217311
http://vimeo.com/8220802
Sports Illustrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntyXvLnxyXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WeaC5QDUpg
Wired:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/...id=66775419001
Fake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnxGNwifqLQ

The whole scope reading encompasses more than just long-form, linear, passive reading!

Edit: In the interest of fairness, there certainly is this strong counter-point...
The Sun (UK, tongue-in-cheek):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVMnmTFxAjA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1QwExp0_g

Until my e-display can multiply (size/qty) at will like a stack of paper can, still going to be relying on printouts for quite a while.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Demas

DPI

No. LCD's dpi is lower than that of e-ink. Which is why issues such as the lack of sub-pixel rendering are less of an issue that they would otherwise have been. I linked a table showing typical LCD dpi's...

Given that those good habits all but eliminate eyestrain together, it makes the display itself somewhat immaterial.

Absolute rubbish. The scientific studies have shown that the ambient lighting and the differences between screen brightness and colour balance and the ambient lighting are extremely relevant!

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Demas

Imagine an e-reader "monitor" that provide perfect paper experience... but is chained to a desktop, with a power cord, in sizes no less than 23".

Yes, please! Can I pick the finish on the desktop?

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

OK, quick question then. Have there been any (presumably recent) empirical studies that compare paper, eInk / epapers, LCD's, and CRT's, in terms of both eyestrain and reading comprehension?

The only studies I've seen so far are a bit older, were mostly paper vs CRT, in which CRT's fared poorly with both eye strain and reading comprehension.

Actually, I'm surprised the eInk manufacturers haven't commissioned more public research tests on this...it seems like a strong marketing point to have quantitative data on the issue. Of course, they may have already done it internally.

But, regardless of what a study or two may say, personal preference/experience in the end is all that really matters.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by kjk

But, regardless of what a study or two may say, personal preference/experience in the end is all that really matters.

Agree 100%. I don't see why people are so set in trying to factually argue/prove what screen type is best.

Just read on what you like and let others do the same.

I think part of it is so many posters, articles on tech sites keep calling various back lit/lcd devices Kindle killers, talking about the death of e-ink etc. that many people who love e-ink get fearful that it's true and get defensive.

There's plenty of room for all kinds of reading devices, I don't see the iPad or other devices killing e-ink or other reflective screens. As long as there's a niche of people who want them, some companies will make them.

[Demas]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Yes, please! Can I pick the finish on the desktop?

Haha, yup. So all you need is a sturdy 23" book stand, a desk, and a lamp... and you've hit the spec. What about the books? Well, like any e-reader, you've got to get them separately... then put it on that stand and read in glorious reflective paper display!

Of course, hysterical people might claim your hefty (but paper perfect) e-reader is going to render you blind if your lamp is too bright or dim with respect to ambient lighting, so... of course, adjust, your reflection angle, your lamp brightness, and your ambient lighting as good habits demand...

...whether paper or otherwise, good habits negate any meaningful eyestrain difference between modern displays, period. Any hysterical shrieking to the contrary is just fear-mongering ignoring good habits. Nothing out there says, "Abandon all hope ye who adopt [X display]"... to the contrary, every expert merely endorses good habits.

[taglines]

This is an important discussion, here and via Nick Bilton at the Bits blog at the TimesMy own view is ...... I have a hunch that reading on screens is vastly inferior to reading on paper, and that reading on screens is not even reading in the old sense of the word, it is a new kind of reading mode, and I have dubbed it [screening] for now until a better word comes along, since we read on screens, I took the noun and verbed it into screening and I know I know, there are already multiple earlier meanings for screening, such screening a movie, or screening cancer patients or screening job applicants, but many words have earlier multiple meanings, we read the weather, we read faces, we read palms, we read clouds, we read maps, so both reading and screening have earlier multiple meanings. And my hunch is that future MRI scan studies will show that different parts of the brain light up when we read on paper compared to when we read on screens and that reading on paper is much better for such things as processing info, analyzing info, retaining info and emotionally taking in the info. Read the works of Anne Mangen and Maryanne Wolf and others in the field.

Okay, maybe , no, for sure, for certain, the word we settle on for screen-reading will not be screening. But a new word will arise, naturally, organically. With time.

[rwizard]

Originally Posted by balok

What? Maybe if you're reading a 500-year-old manuscript, then yes, an ebook reader will cause less eye strain. Otherwise, there's no contest, paper wins every time in terms of contrast.

You never know, maybe they are reading in some lighting situation that their "perfectly white" paper is to bright.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by taglines

And my hunch is that future MRI scan studies will show that different parts of the brain light up when we read on paper compared to when we read on screens and that reading on paper is much better for such things as processing info, analyzing info, retaining info and emotionally taking in the info. Read the works of Anne Mangen and Maryanne Wolf and others in the field.

Although there may be some differences in processing - particularly early on in the process (i.e. in getting to symbols from the visual data) - what makes you think that the processing of information read from paper would be different to reading it from a screen? I doubt this.

After reading on my ereader for a while, I forget the device and read the story - the experience becomes exactly like book reading from paper. My hunch is that this is because it is the same.

I don't think that we need a new word - it will take at most a couple of generations, I suspect, before "reading" will be assumed to mean reading from a screen.

[taglines]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Although there may be some differences in processing - particularly early on in the process (i.e. in getting to symbols from the visual data) - what makes you think that the processing of information read from paper would be different to reading it from a screen? I doubt this.

After reading on my ereader for a while, I forget the device and read the story - the experience becomes exactly like book reading from paper. My hunch is that this is because it is the same.

I don't think that we need a new word - it will take at most a couple of generations, I suspect, before "reading" will be assumed to mean reading from a screen.

Ben, I suspect you are right, too, that "reading" will be assumed to mean reading from a screen very very soon, a couple of gens at most. Yes. Good point. But one never knows, new words come and go, and a new word might fit here, then again might not. We shall see. "Reading" fits fine for now. Maybe in the future too.

As for my hunches about processing etc, just hunches, personal experience, and some researchers have also written about, among them Anne Mangen in a UK journal, and Maryanne Wolf in her book "Proust and the Squid". But the jury is still out on all this, and I agree, we won't know for sure until MRI scan studies are done, and this will take another 10-15 years. I hope I am wrong.

I am glad to hear of your experiences of reading on a screen. I might very well be wrong. Let's see.

[badbob001]

Originally Posted by taglines

Ben, I suspect you are right, too, that "reading" will be assumed to mean reading from a screen very very soon, a couple of gens at most. Yes. Good point. But one never knows, new words come and go, and a new word might fit here, then again might not. We shall see. "Reading" fits fine for now. Maybe in the future too.

As for my hunches about processing etc, just hunches, personal experience, and some researchers have also written about, among them Anne Mangen in a UK journal, and Maryanne Wolf in her book "Proust and the Squid". But the jury is still out on all this, and I agree, we won't know for sure until MRI scan studies are done, and this will take another 10-15 years. I hope I am wrong.

I am glad to hear of your experiences of reading on a screen. I might very well be wrong. Let's see.

Oh no, not *that* discussion again:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60737
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60913
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60909
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60911
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60738
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60908
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60746

I hope this blocks this thread from sidetracking again.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Demas

Any hysterical shrieking to the contrary is just fear-mongering ignoring good habits. Nothing out there says, "Abandon all hope ye who adopt [X display]"... to the contrary, every expert merely endorses good habits.

Of course, scientific research is "Hysterical Shrieking".

[Demas]

Is that the, "This is your brain on Google" discussion or something else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhLnoZFCDBM

Browsing the supplied links (with the OPs redacted in many of them, so not all that helpful), it seems to be more about the specifics of screen reading as opposed to the idea of rich media/multi-tasking/non-linear reading in the "Brain on Google" quip.

What's interesting is that the researcher behind the Brain on Google study has retreated from his original position that more brain activity is good to something more conservative, stating, "We just don't know, maybe- for reading- it's like golf... the less activity the better." (I would've preferred a computer algorithm metaphor but whatever)