3 ms·

> > your brain maps physical properties of the book to actual content > Any resources detailing this? It's the first I've heard of it. The link to the guardia

> > your brain maps physical properties of the book to actual content > Any resources detailing this? It's the first I've heard of it. The link to the guardian article in my previous post has more details and a link to the original study. > I simply can't agree with this. A well indexed ebook is easy to follow cross references in (such as footnotes), you can do an actual search on the content, and the lack of weight is something that can't be understated. > A specific example: I went through the "Physically Based Rendering" book a few years back. I simply can't understate how painful it was to deal with the physical book. It was the size of a large text book (it was a large textbook), heavy enough it never left my desk. More specifically, it was always flat on the desk, making it difficult to read. Apple to oranges. The book you describe is 1200 pages of technical snippets that is largely used as a reference index. It's the perfect example where e-reader outclasses paper book, such is the case for dictionaries and encyclopaedia. I'd even venture to say that a laptop or an iPad would be better than an e-reader considering how important diagrams are in this example. > Even the authors recognized this, providing a digital copy of most of the code so you wouldn't spend all day typing code. Providing code for CS book was already common in the 90's when CD-ROM were bundled with books.

falcolas 7y ago
> The book you describe is 1200 pages of technical snippets that is largely used as a reference index. That's referencing a fiction novel, whereas you are referencing paper as better for non-fiction (and e-readers better for fiction) - a fairly major distinction. > The book you describe is 1200 pages of technical snippets that is largely used as a reference index. Sorry, but you're incorrect on this point. It's an entire physically based rendering literate program, written in such a way as to teach you about PBR in a highly linear fashion (with cross-referencing). It's written to be read from one end to the other.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  > It's written to be read from one end to the other. But you wrote: > Finding content in it that wasn't a chapter title included going to a glossary with a ton of page numbers, and flipping back and forth constantly (see comment about sticky pages) to see if page N was the one I was looking for. So either you read it from one end to the other or you used it as reference material (which "(looking) to see if page N was the one I was looking for." strongly indicates). Frankly, I am not interested in trying to convince you of anything. There are substantial evidences that paper and e-books have different strengths and all you are saying is that the strength I wrote about are wrong because you don't feel like it and your 1200 page monster should be the only point of data to refute what you don't want to agree with. All the while asking for sources I gave in one of the first post, which tells me you take only what you want from the conversation. Not interested.

falcolas 7y ago

> The book you describe is 1200 pages of technical snippets that is largely used as a reference index. That's referencing a fiction novel, whereas you are referencing paper as better for non-fiction (and e-readers better for fiction) - a fairly major distinction. > The book you describe is 1200 pages of technical snippets that is largely used as a reference index. Sorry, but you're incorrect on this point. It's an entire physically based rendering literate program, written in such a way as to teach you about PBR in a highly linear fashion (with cross-referencing). It's written to be read from one end to the other.

johnchristopher 7y ago
> It's written to be read from one end to the other. But you wrote: > Finding content in it that wasn't a chapter title included going to a glossary with a ton of page numbers, and flipping back and forth constantly (see comment about sticky pages) to see if page N was the one I was looking for. So either you read it from one end to the other or you used it as reference material (which "(looking) to see if page N was the one I was looking for." strongly indicates). Frankly, I am not interested in trying to convince you of anything. There are substantial evidences that paper and e-books have different strengths and all you are saying is that the strength I wrote about are wrong because you don't feel like it and your 1200 page monster should be the only point of data to refute what you don't want to agree with. All the while asking for sources I gave in one of the first post, which tells me you take only what you want from the conversation. Not interested.