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

[BenG]

Originally Posted by danbloom

Could we -- and scholars, and news reporters -- benefit perhaps from a new word for "reading" on screens in order to help usher in the Screen Age

no


...

[danbloom]

BenG,
But what about this?

"Plain old "reading" simply doesn't seem to cover the various acts necessary to experience a multimedia vook that we have to click, scroll, screen, watch, listen to, and - yes - read. "

-- Richard Curtis, veteran NYC literary agent and Ebook publisher

http://www.ereads.com/2009/10/is-tha...r-are-you.html

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by danbloom

Could we -- and scholars, and news reporters -- benefit perhaps from a new word for "reading" on screens in order to help usher in the Screen Age, this Digital Reading Revolution that is upon us now?

Probably not. Many people have been reading on screens for well over a decade, and have not needed a new word to describe the experience. The word itself is not exclusive to interpreting information from paper sources. Information can be interpreted from many sources. For instance, a computer reads a hard disk drive.

[bookfanmd]

Not necessary.

[danbloom]

thread closed uncivil behavior some commenters mods

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by bookfanmd

Not necessary.

What about beneficial? The question was specifically about beneficial?

see: "Could we benefit from a new word for reading on screens to usher in the Screen Age?"


and by "we", I meant scholars and neuroscientists and news reporters studying these issues..... not the lay public. We don't need a new word. We just do what we do.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by danbloom

Okay, let me re-phrase the question, then, Kali Yuga. Would a new word, perhaps, maybe, be "useful" in order to help scholars and scientists better study the two reading modes?

No.

We didn't need a separate word for typing when we shifted from typewriters to computers; we didn't need a separate word for phone calls when we shifted from land-lines to cell phones; we didn't need a new word for listening, or "listening to music," when we shifted from the pre-recorded era, to vinyl records and radio, to portable music players. I.e. It's not like "texting," where you have a whole new activity for which a pre-existing term fails to capture the unique nature of the activity. Reading is reading is reading.

And I'm confident that anyone doing research on the topic will be more than capable of properly distinguishing between ebooks and paper.

[BenG]

"Plain old "reading" simply doesn't seem to cover the various acts necessary to experience a multimedia vook that we have to click, scroll, screen, watch, listen to, and - yes - read. "

Using that logic, "plain old reading" doesn't cover the various acts necessary to experience a printed book that that we have to open, turn pages, look at illustrations, annotate with a pen or pencil, study charts, check the glossary, and -yes- read.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by danbloom

My idea is that a new term or word MIGHT be beneficial for scholars studying the issues involved. Does that make my question more clear?

That still does not require a new word, just an additional word to define what type of reading. The word "read" by itself just means to take in information.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/read

As you can see from Webster's definition, there are many applications of the word "read" and those other applications can just use additional descriptors. For examples in addition to Webster's, a computer can "read a disk" or a pilot can "read the sky" to determine weather conditions.

[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.

[danbloom]

Offboard, a new email friend tells me just now:

"Danny, what a great question!

How about the obvious: E-READING? That probably says it all, and the word
contains the question -- Is e-reading really reading? Or is it something
neurologically different (which, I think, we all suspect it is).

We already use the word "e-learning," and that's been helpful. I mean, taking
an "e-learning" course, or an online course, isn't exactly like going to
a live university classroom, is it? It's fine, and I'd like to do more of it -- but it isn't going
to put classrooms out of business. So why not use e-reading, too?

I'd love to disagree with you, Danny. But I can't do it. My brain processes
words on paper in a particular way .......and processes them on-screen in an
entirely different way. E-reading, for me, is a way to instantly simulate
Attention Deficit Disorder. My brain goes into the shut-down mode, and I
can't do anything about it. I get the equivalent of a blue-screen, and I'm
out. [Strangely, audio books do the same thing. ]

I'm a paper addict
(seriously), and I'm wondering whether I would ever be able to transfer that
addiction (not that you'd want to, but I'm just saying....) to any other
mechanism for packaging entertainment or information."

[jasonkchapman]

Of course we would benefit. Just like we did when we moved from watching live performances to watching movies in theaters to watching shows on television to watching YouTube videos.

I think you get where I'm going with this....

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Of course we would benefit. Just like we did when we moved from watching live performances to watching movies in theaters to watching shows on television to watching YouTube videos.

I think you get where I'm going with this....

I see where you're going with this, yes.

[danbloom]

And just to play the Devil's Advocate, a reporter at the New York Times, who disagrees with me completely, and has told me so in a private email -- that's David Pogue, for those who know him, brilliant guy, great writer, ace reporter -- he said to me: "well, if you really think there might be a need for a new word for reading, then why don't you also start a campaign to find a new word for writing on a keyboard, because that is NOT really writing with a pencil or a pen. We said TYPING when we wrote on typewriters, but now we say WRiTING again for the kind of writing we do on screens and keyboards and emails. Why don't you fight for a new word for screen writing, too, then?"

I told him I was not concerned about as new word for writing on keyboards or screens. But I see his point, his analog point. Just not a concern of mine.

BUT NOTICE the prompt on Gmail and other Email screens says: COMPOSE MAIL. It does not say WRITE MAIL. It uses the word COMPOSE. COMPOSE? COMPOSE MUSIC, no? Why doesn't the email window prompt say WRITE MESSAGE? or WRITE EMAL? Who chose this word COMPOSE instead of WRITE?

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

No.

We didn't need a separate word for typing when we shifted from typewriters to computers; we didn't need a separate word for phone calls when we shifted from land-lines to cell phones; we didn't need a new word for listening, or "listening to music," when we shifted from the pre-recorded era, to vinyl records and radio, to portable music players. I.e. It's not like "texting," where you have a whole new activity for which a pre-existing term fails to capture the unique nature of the activity. Reading is reading is reading.

And I'm confident that anyone doing research on the topic will be more than capable of properly distinguishing between ebooks and paper.

Good points all.