SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Fast track or the physical experience?
date
newest »
newest »
Yup, myopia and migraines. I need to get off the screen now; tx for the reminder.
Micah wrote: "David wrote: "YouKneeK wrote: "David wrote: "What about reading on your phone don't you like?..."The tactile interface on phones was not optimized for book reading. I find my phone to be way too ..."
I agree with Micah on the benefits of an e-reader over a phone. And would add battery life. My kindle will stay charged for weeks even if I use it a lot. If I'm using my phone for reading a lot, then I won't have the battery for any emergencies.
I understand the enjoyment of having just one device. But for some things, the e-reader is superior. However, if those features aren't as important and the convenience of a single device, then to each their own. :)
David wrote: "I'm just not sure what an e-reader brings to the table that makes it preferable to a phone? What about reading on your phone don't you like? Have you tried a blue-light filter and/or changing the font and background color to something besides dark black text on a stark white background?"Sorry, this is the first chance I’ve had to reply. Below are some answers from my personal perspective, but first I want to emphasize that I’m not trying to convert you to e-readers. You had listed some specific concerns you had with e-readers, and I was just explaining why those things aren’t a concern for me as a self-confessed lover of e-readers. If you're happy reading on your phone, that's great.
Eye Strain
Eye strain is not a factor in my preference of e-readers. I’ve been staring at computer screens for longer than you’ve been alive. I’m 41, and I’ve been using computers daily since I was 6. I’m also a programmer; I work on computers all day long, then often come home and spend some of my free time on them. Maybe I’ll suffer the consequences later in life; I know some of my colleagues are horrified by how I’ll intently stare at the screen for hours when I’m absorbed by a project.
Screen Size
The absolute #1 reason I prefer e-readers is simply the screen size. Context is important to me. I find that I don’t understand or retain information as well when I read it on my phone. This isn’t just with books, but also with e-mails, message forums, you name it. My eyes automatically tend to flick back up to previous paragraphs to confirm and clarify things. I was never really aware how often I did that until I tried reading on smaller devices and found myself scrolling up a lot. It’s the same reason I’ve never been able to embrace the Spritz / WordRunner type apps. They help me read faster, but I understand less content and so the time is wasted.
I also think people with poor vision would have trouble reading on a phone. My mom has poor eyesight and uses the largest font on her e-reader. If she tried to read e-books on a phone, I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say she would probably only get about 5 words on the screen at a time. Maybe less.
Random Stuff
Here are some more minor reasons why I prefer to read on e-readers:
* Glare in sunlight. There is a definite difference between a backlit screen versus a frontlit (or not lit) screen when there is sun shining on your device. I read on my deck a lot during the warmer months, which is quite a bit in Atlanta. When the sun is shining my way, I have trouble reading e-mails on my phone but no problem reading on my e-reader. I’ve also been in a car full of colleagues during a business road trip on a sunny day and, out of the corner of my eye, I kept seeing everybody shifting their phones around to try to reduce the glare whereas I could see my e-reader perfectly.
* Battery life. Just having the screen displayed on a phone or tablet consumes quite a bit of batteries. An e-reader consumes much fewer batteries; it’s almost a joke how little charging time it requires. If I spent an equivalent amount of time reading my phone as I do on my e-reader, charging would become more of a hassle.
* Distractions. Micah already covered this well in post #48, so I don’t have anything to add.
Also, regarding the Amazon Ecosystem, Micah covered that one in post #49. I downloaded a lot of books from the Baen Free Library back in the day, and they are all on my Amazon cloud because I sent them there. I have the same syncing ability with those books as I do with the ones I purchased direct from Amazon. The reason I focused on Amazon’s ecosystem was because that’s the one I’m familiar with. Cloud technology is not a new thing so I’m sure there are other methods on other platforms; I just can’t speak to any of them from personal experience.
Micah wrote: "I shift my position and the screen flips from horizontal to vertical or vice versa. Sure, I could turn off the screen flip while reading, but that's kind of a pain."The screen flipping drove me absolutely nuts at first when reading on my phone. Since you have a Voyage, I guess you probably use the Kindle App on your phone? If so, there’s a setting that disables the screen flip only within the Kindle App, without disabling it for your whole phone.
It’s easy to miss though because it isn’t on any of the setting pages. While you’re reading a book, flip your phone sideways and you’ll see a little padlock icon show up. On my phone, it’s in the bottom-right corner. Touch that while your phone is in the orientation you want to prevent rotation while you're in the app. When you’re not in the app, even if it’s still open in the background, the rotation will still work the same way it does based on your device settings.
Micah wrote: "David wrote: "YouKneeK wrote: "David wrote: "What about reading on your phone don't you like?..."The tactile interface on phones was not optimized for book reading. I find my phone to be way too ..."
Mmm, yeah, can't really do much about the internet and social media. I'm just not the type of person to be distracted by those things I guess. I don't use twitter at all, I check email on my computer, and I don't even have facebook installed on my phone and barely ever use it on the computer.
A good app should solve the first set of problems though. The one I use, moonreader, lets you lock your orientation permanently just for the app, and mine doesn't scroll, only tapping moves the page forward.
Trike wrote: "David wrote: "I just really have no complaints about reading on my phone is the main thing. It's no harder on my eyes than print. I've heard people claim it is and I honestly think it's 100% a plac..."Staring at a computer screen is no worse than staring at a book according to my research. Both cause you to stop blinking a healthy amount, which causes eye strain, dry eyes, and headaches, all of which are 100% temporary and can be prevented or alleviated with things like eye drops, better lighting in the case of print, or adjusting your monitor's brightness, height, and distance from your eyes. Most people just use their computer/phone way more than they read so they think books are easier on your eyes. Chinese students have been suffering epidemic levels of eye strain resulting in temporary myopia for decades and it's from text books, not computer screens. Schools had to implement mandatory eye exercises. If you stare at a print book for 10 hours every day, the average that most americans spend staring at screens, you're gonna have the exact same problems.
YouKneeK wrote: "David wrote: "I'm just not sure what an e-reader brings to the table that makes it preferable to a phone? What about reading on your phone don't you like? Have you tried a blue-light filter and/or ..."1) I wouldn't worry about it. Like I said, computers destroying your eyes is 100% a myth, I doubt you'll ever suffer consequences.
2) Glare is definitely a drawback. Haven't had too many problems yet, but I also don't spend a ton of time lounging outside.
3) Re-reading what I just read is a habit that I intentionally broke myself of when I was like 19 and I forget other people do this. I haven't noticed any lack of comprehension. People tend to underestimate how well they understood what they just read and mostly do this habitually rather than out of necessity, or at least that's what I read at the time in an article about reading speeds and how to read faster.
4) I don't think you guys quite understand my problem with amazon. If you're, say, ripping amazon books into you calibre library, converting to DRM-free epub, and then uploading that to amazon drive, then that's basically the same thing I'm doing. I just prefer dropbox. That's not what I thought you meant though, and I still don't. I assume you're buying books on amazon, leaving them in their propriety, copy-protected format (.azw), and accessing them through your kindle or through the kindle app, which is not the same as amazon's cloud service afaik. Maybe I'm missing something, but purchased ebooks are under "manage your content and devices," under your account settings. Your cloud drive is at amazon.com/clouddrive, and is empty unless you upload something to it. They seem like different things.
Until you remove the DRM and get those books on your computer you don't REALLY own them, imo. You can't use them on, say, a Nook, or with a non-Amazon e-book app on an android phone, and Amazon still has the power to lock you out of your library, whether intentionally or through a glitch.
YouKneeK wrote: "David wrote: "I'm just not sure what an e-reader brings to the table that makes it preferable to a phone? What about reading on your phone don't you like? Have you tried a blue-light filter and/or ..."People who don't have Kindle e-readers don't know what an e-reader can bring to the table. There really is no glare with a Kindle e-reader. You can read it all day without eyestrain. My Voyage adjusts the light offered by the e-reader. During the day it's glare-free. At night I get a soft glow, so I can read on a dark commute. I am suffering from eyestrain now as I type this post on my laptop. I will never trade in my Voyage for a model with glare.
David wrote: "YouKneeK wrote: "David wrote: "I'm just not sure what an e-reader brings to the table that makes it preferable to a phone? What about reading on your phone don't you like? Have you tried a blue-lig..."They make glasses with special tinting to cut down the glare from Computer screens. Something I make use of, since that does give me headaches. And working in a call center I look at those screens all day.
David wrote: "1) I wouldn't worry about it. Like I said, computers destroying your eyes is 100% a myth, I doubt you'll ever suffer consequences."1. I’m not worried about it, but I’m also not so dismissive of other people’s experiences just because my experience has been different.
2. I figure, if I’m going to be sitting still and reading, I might as well enjoy the fresh(ish) air in the process.
3. I’m not sure where you got “re-reading” from. As I said, I’m talking about quick flicks of the eyes. My eyes will flick back up to verify a character name, for example, or to clarify who’s speaking when the dialogue flow isn’t quite clear. My eyes also flick down when I want more context for what I’m currently reading. For example, to find out what character’s perspective I’m reading from if it isn’t immediately apparent after a section break.
I think this is pretty normal? I think most readers absorb information in chunks to some extent, so I’m just saying that the “chunk” on the phone feels too small and confining for my reading habits. Have you tried Spritz, or a similar app? A genuine attempt, reading an actual book for 30+ minutes? Did it work fine for you, or did you feel frustrated by only seeing one word at a time? If it frustrated you, then maybe you can understand that my experience reading on a phone is similar, but on a larger scale.
4. I think you’ve lost the entire context of the conversation. You said, in post #42 referring to your Nook, “it’s another device to keep charged and carry around” and “I have no place to put it when I go out”. You seem to think you’d have to carry your Nook around if it were your primary reading device. My point was that you don’t. You can download books on multiple devices and sync the pages, so you could use your e-reader at home and use your phone when you’re out. I was talking about the specific (Amazon) with the expectation that you would extrapolate to the general.
YouKneeK wrote: "David wrote: "1) I wouldn't worry about it. Like I said, computers destroying your eyes is 100% a myth, I doubt you'll ever suffer consequences."1. I’m not worried about it, but I’m also not so d..."
1) I'm not trying to be dismissive of other people's experiences at all. People have their preferences and that's totally their prerogative. I'm just pointing out that eyestrain is dependent on the details rather than the medium and that books can and will cause bad eyestrain just the same. Some people seem to think screens are no matter what significantly harder on your eyes, which just isn't true. These are usually the same people that typically make no effort to change the way text displays on their screen from the default settings, and I'm just trying to help their experience, really. Screens are a huge part of the daily experience now and many people, particularly older people, don't know the best way to use them and just stick with defaults which is asking for trouble. There's a reason every programmer I know uses light text on a dark background, the opposite of print. I have a browser extension making goodreads look like that right now. Most people's monitors are set way too bright as well, and people have a tendency to move their face closer to the screen rather than increasing font size/page zoom.
People also seem to think books can't cause strain at all, which also isn't true. Long-term, intense focus of any kind is hard on your eyes if you don't keep them lubricated and take breaks. Worst headaches I ever got from reading were from reading print books for 10-12 hours straight when I was a teenager and only had ambient lighting in my room, no reading lamps. Books absolutely can cause terrible eystrain, so it's just silly to me when people are like, "books are good for your eyes and screens are bad." It's really just not the simple, unfortunately. Not trying to be dismissive at all, just speaking the truth and giving people examples of how to improve their screen experience if they're interested.
2) I live in Chicago, so most of the year is a bad time to be outside, unfortunately. I take advantage when I can.
3) Perhaps re-reading is a bad word for it, but what you describe is exactly what I'm talking about, and I wasn't saying it wasn't normal. It's, in fact, very normal. Almost all readers subvocalize as well, but it too is an unnecessary thing that hampers reading speed and can be overcome with practice. You don't need to flick your eyes back up to text you just read a second ago, it's a bad habit and you can, like me, get rid of it. 99% of the time if you just keep reading, you'll get the context you feel you're missing, and without wasting time flicking your eyes back up to previously read text. Trust me, I used to do it all the time.
I have tried spritz, actually, and it's totally doable for me. The thing that I don't like is that it automatically parses through the text at one speed. A speed reader doesn't read all text at the same speed, they vary their speed depending on content. I don't know if this exists, but I would feel perfectly comfortable using a spritz-like app where I had control over the flow of text by tapping. Reading a sentence at a time without the surrounding text isn't a problem to me at all. Besides, a phone is hardly the same thing, you're exaggerating heavily. Even with your font set pretty large you can fit a paragraph or two on a modern phone screen. The average print page has 250-300 words. A page on my phone has about 200 (yes, I just counted because I'm lame like that and have nothing better to do). It's really not that far off. I do vaguely remember having a similar feeling at some point but I just got over it pretty fast, I guess. One thing I'll say is I prefer holding my phone horizontally to read as it reduces the amount of times my eyes have to "reset" back to the far left position. But my girlfriend reads on her phone more than me and she holds it horizontally so maybe it's just in my head.
4) Being tied to the Nook ecosystem would have the same problem, though. I guess I got confused because I never said switching between devices is difficult or one of the reasons I don't use an e-reader, you just assumed it was? Switching to reading on my phone while out of the house because my nook was too big is literally what I did, which led to me using my phone 100% of the time, even while home, and ditching the nook entirely because it was unnecessary and I didn't see a reason to use it as well as my phone. My phone is easier to handle and I always have it on me anyway. Only reason I didn't use it before was because I assumed e-readers were better because that's something people say, and I didn't really question it. The only situation an e-reader is an advantage is outside in bright, direct sunlight, as you pointed out, but that's the one situation I can't use it because it's too big to carry, so I'm not seeing how that's a solution to my (non-problem) of not wanting to use my nook?
David wrote: "1) I wouldn't worry about it. Like I said, computers destroying your eyes is 100% a myth, I doubt you'll ever suffer consequences. "I used to work at a vision testing company and I can tell you that the scientific evidence is in and that computer screens absolutely do cause a whole host of negative effects, many of which can seriously damage your eyes. It doesn't take much googling to find those studies.
It may be that you're one of the lucky people who won't suffer problems. I know people who have smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 45 years with no serious problems, but most of the heavy smokers I've known are dead from cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and so on.
My grandma is 103 and looks like she's decades younger. My dad is a month away from 84 and my mom is 80. Non-smokers. My aunts and uncles and grandfather, plus a few cousins, who were smokers, are all dead. Maybe I'd be lucky, but I never wanted to bet that way.
If you want to bet your eyes will hold up, that's your call. But the reality is that for most people, computer screens hurt your eyes, full stop.
Trike wrote: "David wrote: "1) I wouldn't worry about it. Like I said, computers destroying your eyes is 100% a myth, I doubt you'll ever suffer consequences. "I used to work at a vision testing company and I ..."
I'm really sorry I have to be "that guy," right now, but...no?
http://time.com/3257927/you-asked-can...
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...
https://petapixel.com/2014/03/04/comp...
http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkingh...
http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/compu...
Some choice quotes:
"There's no proof that computer use causes any long-term damage to the eyes. But regular use can lead to eye strain and discomfort."
"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.
Doctors and researchers note that in most instances, paper can offer more visual sophistication than a screen. But certain types of paper, including inexpensive newsprint and the paper in softcover books, can actually provide an inferior reading experience for our eyes than electronic alternatives.
Professor Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, said that reducing eye fatigue is less a matter of choosing a specific display than of taking short breaks from looking at the screen.
When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. “While you’re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It’s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,” he said.
Today’s screens are definitely less tiring to look at than older displays, which refreshed the image much less frequently, causing a flicker. Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard‘s Information Surfaces Lab, said the 120 Hz refresh rate typical of modern screens is much quicker than our eyes can even see.”
"Brisbane optometry professor Nathan Efron does not consider computer screens "harmful" to our eyes.
But he admits if you use one a lot, you increase your risk of becoming slightly more short-sighted – where your eyes focus well only on close objects while more distant objects appear blurred. This is especially the case for children and young adults, whose eyes are still developing.
But doing a lot of any close-up work – including reading – will have the same effect.
The link between close eye work and short-sightedness is less of a problem for people over 30 or so, though.
That's because you're less likely to become short-sighted from close eye work after about age 30 (when the eye's growth and development is complete). And if you have already developed some short-sightedness from screen use or reading earlier in life, it actually becomes advantageous after about age 45.
This is because our eyes change as we age, for reasons that have nothing to do with how we use them. We naturally become less able to read up close because of physical changes in the eye's lens that tend to become noticeable in middle age. This condition, which eventually catches up with all of us, is called 'presbyopia'.
If you don't spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen until after 45 – when you've almost certainly got glasses for presbyopia – your glasses are taking some of the focusing "workload" off your eyes. This means your eyes aren't actually subjected to the constant focusing forces that change the shape of your eyeball and make you short-sighted.
But if you did start young – before you needed glasses for presbyopia – any short-sightedness you developed is likely to be problematic for only a limited window of time in your life. Once you hit your 40s, some short-sightedness could actually be considered beneficial, because it "cancels out" to some extent the long-sightedness of presbyopia."
---------------------
So, like I said, it's the amount of time rather than the format. People use their computer/phone for longer than they used to read before computers were common. That's really all there is to it. Reading a print book for 10 hours a day carries the same eyestrain and risks of short-sightendess as staring at a screen for 10 hours, which is why China had an explosion of myopia in children when they started spending all their time in indoor classrooms reading textbooks for insane amounts of hours in the 50s-80s. It's just not worth fretting over, imo. Pretty much everybody needs glasses at some point anyway, no matter what you do, as that article pointed out. My four grandparents and aunts and uncles in their late 40s certainly don't all wear glasses because they stared at their phone and computer too much.
But hey, whatever, I'm not looking to get into an argument here. You live your life the way you think best, don't use screens, I don't care what you do. Just don't try and tell me I'm "taking a bet," on my eyes, because I'm not. I'm making an informed decision based on current research, expert advice, and plenty of first-hand experience. That's like saying I'm "taking a bet on my health," by drinking black coffee everyday, because decades ago one study that didn't control for cigarette use (a common problem in older health studies) said coffee causes heart disease, which has now been definitively debunked by newer studies that show coffee is not only safe but likely good for you (although added sugar is obviously not). My grandma still thinks coffee will kill you because that's what people used to say and think. She's wrong. Old people can get very set in their ways and tend not to listen to current research about things they already made their mind up about. I'll probably be the same way, one day.
I wish I weren't getting more and more near-sighted as I get grayer and more skeptical. Any epidemiological study can only look at the evidence already available. Following the advice of them is always a gamble. I've lost. Heck, I have personal evidence... when I go on a road trip, and spend the day looking at scenery, other traffic, etc, instead of reading, I can see better (at all distances) for days afterword. And even though I've looked at all sorts of accessibility extensions, filters, etc., including the white text on black background, I do get headaches much more readily from screen time than book time.
I sincerely hope that ppl peering so many hours a day at tiny screens are luckier than I am... and I also hope self-driving cars become a reality for those of us who are outliving our eyes!
I have to agree with David, it also depends on your eyesight to start with. I am in my late 60's and have read adult type books since i was 8 ( Asimov) . Since I have always had glasses my specialist insisted that I do an eye exercise at the end of each page. Since I have always read a few books a week.Since the first little bitty computers came on the market I have used their screens. No eyesight problems yet, in fact my glasses are getting weaker ( another story).
Luckily being a woman I can carry a bag around ( hello man bags are around) and I always carry my kindle. It is so much easier to read on than a phone .
Although I do agree with David buying ebooks require converting them so that I OWN them and then putting them back on the kindle
There has not been enough time for a gold standard scientific study to be done on modern screen usage - that would be a double blind longitudinal study which goes on for many decades.Also the coffee example - it is quite bad for some people - you're missing the key aspect of all human sciences: individual differences are the rule not the exception.
In addition majority of studies over time were using white makes only and should not be construed to extend to all.
David wrote: "Some people seem to think screens are no matter what significantly harder on your eyes, which just isn't true."The two paragraphs around this quote are just an expanded edition of things you posted at least a couple times earlier. As I’ve said, eye strain is not a factor for me in my choice of device. I get your point that you don’t believe you were being dismissive. Aside from that, I’m tired of the repetition. I never brought this up in the first place. Other people can engage you on it if they want.
David wrote: "You don't need to flick your eyes back up to text you just read a second ago, it's a bad habit and you can, like me, get rid of it. 99% of the time if you just keep reading, you'll get the context you feel you're missing, and without wasting time flicking your eyes back up to previously read text. Trust me, I used to do it all the time.
I still don’t think we're on the same page, or maybe for you it takes a lot more effort to do what I’m trying to explain and so you felt like it was a habit you needed to break. Calling somebody else’s chosen reading technique a “bad habit” is derogatory and comes across as closed-minded. I have different goals and preferences that drive my reading style. Your reading style may work awesomely for you, but it doesn't mean I want to emulate it.
David wrote: "Besides, a phone is hardly the same thing, you're exaggerating heavily. Even with your font set pretty large you can fit a paragraph or two on a modern phone screen."
I said, “If it frustrated you, then maybe you can understand…”. I was trying to convey a sensation that might help you understand my perspective. It was an analogy. By definition, it isn’t going to be an exact match for the situation under discussion or else it wouldn’t be an analogy.
David wrote: "I guess I got confused because I never said switching between devices is difficult or one of the reasons I don't use an e-reader, you just assumed it was?"
Let’s try again, starting from the beginning. What did you mean when you said, in reference to the Nook, “it’s another device to … carry around” and “I have no place to put it when I go out”? Why would you ever think you’d have to take your Nook with you when you go out?
David wrote: " I'm not seeing how that's a solution to my (non-problem) of not wanting to use my nook?"
I wasn’t presenting syncing functionality as a reason for you to go back to reading on your Nook. Why do you think I was? I was trying to provide information I didn’t think you had based on your comments. As I said before, I’m not trying to convince you to use e-readers.
You’ve said a few times throughout this discussion that when you were younger you did certain things and you’ve since learned better, implying that anybody who doesn’t agree with you hasn’t “learned better” yet. I would propose to you that you’re not at the pinnacle of knowledge. Maybe later, you’ll “learn better” again and change the opinions you hold now. Newer behaviors aren’t always better just because they’re newer. I’d like to think they often are, but not always. Sometimes your changes in thought are based on misconceptions, or based on “facts” and studies that people will later disprove.
Sometimes the things you are absolutely certain about are really just opinions that apply beautifully to you, but not necessarily to the whole world. Expressing opinions and presenting information on the internet is great, and I'm sure you have many great ideas and information that people could find interesting and informative, but you can express those things without alienating people in a tiresome debate. In any case, cultivating a "live and let live" attitude will save you a lot of frustration.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Lil BUB's Lil Book: The Extraordinary Life of the Most Amazing Cat on the Planet (other topics)Fat Vampire (other topics)
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (other topics)
I'm in a like situation - but the only store for miles around now is B&N. And their selection is horrible. Mostly toys and bs Best Sellers.
Last time I went in was right after the Hugo noms were announced and I was looking for Jemisin as a gift. They had the omnibus of her first series but NONE OF THE HUGO NOMINATION/WINNING books. WTF. I was so irratated I bitched and moaned to staff about how insane it was that the Hugo nominations were out and they had almost none of the nominees. Seriously. WTF. That's prime book selling time. I was there with cash in my pocket and a hot list in my hand. They could have made some real money off me that day.