6 ms·

> Maybe I'm just an old grouch. Yes. Reading on iPad is great.

by f6v 3y ago

bm5k 3y ago
+1 for reading on iPad. Especially the 12.9”. Not sure it’ll replace my eInk reader for pulp fiction, but for technical materials, it’s usually more convenient than going to my shelf to grab a physical book.
adhesive_wombat 3y ago
I find when I have digital documents, things are easier to find when I'm looking for them. But physical documents are ones I'll just pick up and idly read. Which is the value I'd (personally) take in a shelf of, in this case, ACM journals in my house. Admittedly this isn't a key consideration for the ACM.
mellosouls 3y ago
It really isn't, at least not generally. I think tablets are a decent secondary substitute for print-form only for publications like this with figures and images, and where the activity is more browsing rather than linear. For general reading (eg fiction) I think print is optimal, followed by e-ink with normal tablets considerably down the list. The ease of access to a library bumps up the utility of the ereader and tablet considerably.
- okaram 3y ago
  For normal fiction, the Kindle is ideal for me. Much more comfortable to hold than even a small paperback, can increase the font size (getting old) and can illuminate the screen. Plus, I can carry a full library with me. I haven't found anything better than paper for technical docs, but getting a PDF and printing the few pages I need is amazing.
- midasuni 3y ago
  The ease of access to my book on my phone to read when I have 10 minutes spare is far better than access to print.
- mananaysiempre 3y ago
  > I think tablets are a decent secondary substitute for print-form [...] where the activity is more browsing rather than linear. Interesting that my impression is more or less the opposite: I can read on a tablet all right, but leafing through is annoying and switching back and forth between three or four places in a big (thousand-page) reference book is so annoying as to be nearly impossible. The first, because rendering PDF pages (understandably) takes time, and the second, because I’ve seen no bookmarks interface as seamless and convenient as leaving a loose sheet of paper or even just your finger in the necessary place—they’re all much too fiddly.
  - coldacid 3y ago
    I'd be interested to know both of your ages; I'm assuming, mananaysiempre, that you're probably under 30, and that mellosouls, like myself, is over 40. With some exceptions it seems like there is a generation gap between those of us who prefer the written word on paper, and those who prefer it on a screen of some sort, with the latter group tending to be those who've essentially grown up with digital gadgets of all sorts.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- II2II 3y ago
  Perhaps the issues is with the software rather than the format. I use KOReader and it offers a number of tools for browsing through a book. Which is fantastic. Yet most of the software out there is incredibly linear (with the only exceptions being keyword search, table of contents, and maybe an index provided by the publisher).
pjmlp 3y ago
My eyes disagree, reading papers on any digital medium that isn't powered by e-ink is a big pain.
- justincormack 3y ago
  Remarkable is good. Would love an even larger size.
  - ThrowawayR2 3y ago
    The Remarkable 2 is very underpowered as an e-reader and the manufacturer is doing themselves a disservice by mentioning it as an option in their marketing. It's a digital notepad, no more.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Yeah, it is on my list when my Kidle eventually dies.
  - elric 3y ago
    In my experience, Remarkable is mediocre at best ... Battery life is not spectacular, page turning is slow, reading experience is subpar (worse than my 10+ year old Kobo). I mean the screen is great and I enjoy writing on it, but it's not a book/magazine replacement by a long shot.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  You gotta check your eyes out then first. Since the introduction of retina displays there’s no reason healthy adjusted eyes will have to feel tired or strained looking at them..
  - clintfred 3y ago
    One reason might be the backlit display and the glossy screen. Glossy screens, especially, really strain my eyes.
akalajeu 3y ago
I am not a physist, but I have a hunch that the light hitting your eye from a direct light source is higher energy than that from a relected light source? E-ink is mechanical [1] so also relies on reflected light rather than being a light source. More energy would mean more stimulation? The eye was designed to look mainly at reflected light? There is potential damage from consistant over stimulation? Maybe its not a great idea to constantly shine light directly into your eyes? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Ink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Ink
- light_hue_1 3y ago
  > I am not a physist [sic] Correct! > but I have a hunch that the light hitting your eye from a direct light source is higher energy than that from a reflected light source? Incorrect! There's no concept of photons that have or have not been bounced, or are "direct" or "indirect". Also, you probably want to talk about intensity, not energy. Energy has to do with frequency (the color of light), intensity has to do with the amount of total light. > More energy would mean more stimulation? As it stands this says that blue light is more stimulating than red. Amusingly, this is true! But not in the sense that you meant it. It has to do with how our rods and cones work and how your circadian rhythm is calibrated. People use red light not to screw up their night vision so much. Perhaps you mean more intensity? That's actually false! Sunlight is incredibly strong. Far stronger than any artificial light you have normally. > Maybe its not a great idea to constantly shine light directly into your eyes? I'm sorry to say this would require the removal of your eyes. But seriously. What matters is not "direct" or "indirect" light, which is a meaningless concept. What matters is relative contrast. E-ink feels better because the contrast in intensity between it and the background you're on is lower.
  - akalajeu 3y ago
    Thank you!!
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    > Sunlight is incredibly strong. Far stronger than any artificial light you have normally. A few years ago, I wanted a photo near a window with one half on sunlight and the other half in shadows. I tried to adjust the camera, the distance, direct or indirect sunlight, the illumination inside the room to illuminate the "shadow". It was impossible, the sun is too bright compared with usual light sources. I finally gave up and faked it with gimp :) .
oslem 3y ago
I’m in my twenties and strongly prefer to read on paper over any screen. Partly because it’s easier on my eyes and partly because I like to markup the paper. I have yet to use something as seamless as a pen and paper for that.
- zoomablemind 3y ago
  Well, this is still in realm of using your own printer for the intended purpose. How many times researchers go find article PDF on notnamed site, then print it for reading and annotating, just as one would do with a copy from a printed journal.

> Maybe I'm just an old grouch. Yes. Reading on iPad is great.

by f6v 3y ago

> Maybe I'm just an old grouch. Yes. Reading on iPad is great.

bm5k 3y ago

+1 for reading on iPad. Especially the 12.9”. Not sure it’ll replace my eInk reader for pulp fiction, but for technical materials, it’s usually more convenient than going to my shelf to grab a physical book.

adhesive_wombat 3y ago

I find when I have digital documents, things are easier to find when I'm looking for them. But physical documents are ones I'll just pick up and idly read. Which is the value I'd (personally) take in a shelf of, in this case, ACM journals in my house. Admittedly this isn't a key consideration for the ACM.

mellosouls 3y ago

It really isn't, at least not generally. I think tablets are a decent secondary substitute for print-form only for publications like this with figures and images, and where the activity is more browsing rather than linear. For general reading (eg fiction) I think print is optimal, followed by e-ink with normal tablets considerably down the list. The ease of access to a library bumps up the utility of the ereader and tablet considerably.

okaram 3y ago
For normal fiction, the Kindle is ideal for me. Much more comfortable to hold than even a small paperback, can increase the font size (getting old) and can illuminate the screen. Plus, I can carry a full library with me. I haven't found anything better than paper for technical docs, but getting a PDF and printing the few pages I need is amazing.
midasuni 3y ago
The ease of access to my book on my phone to read when I have 10 minutes spare is far better than access to print.
mananaysiempre 3y ago
> I think tablets are a decent secondary substitute for print-form [...] where the activity is more browsing rather than linear. Interesting that my impression is more or less the opposite: I can read on a tablet all right, but leafing through is annoying and switching back and forth between three or four places in a big (thousand-page) reference book is so annoying as to be nearly impossible. The first, because rendering PDF pages (understandably) takes time, and the second, because I’ve seen no bookmarks interface as seamless and convenient as leaving a loose sheet of paper or even just your finger in the necessary place—they’re all much too fiddly.
- coldacid 3y ago
  I'd be interested to know both of your ages; I'm assuming, mananaysiempre, that you're probably under 30, and that mellosouls, like myself, is over 40. With some exceptions it seems like there is a generation gap between those of us who prefer the written word on paper, and those who prefer it on a screen of some sort, with the latter group tending to be those who've essentially grown up with digital gadgets of all sorts.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
II2II 3y ago
Perhaps the issues is with the software rather than the format. I use KOReader and it offers a number of tools for browsing through a book. Which is fantastic. Yet most of the software out there is incredibly linear (with the only exceptions being keyword search, table of contents, and maybe an index provided by the publisher).

pjmlp 3y ago

My eyes disagree, reading papers on any digital medium that isn't powered by e-ink is a big pain.

justincormack 3y ago
Remarkable is good. Would love an even larger size.
- ThrowawayR2 3y ago
  The Remarkable 2 is very underpowered as an e-reader and the manufacturer is doing themselves a disservice by mentioning it as an option in their marketing. It's a digital notepad, no more.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Yeah, it is on my list when my Kidle eventually dies.
- elric 3y ago
  In my experience, Remarkable is mediocre at best ... Battery life is not spectacular, page turning is slow, reading experience is subpar (worse than my 10+ year old Kobo). I mean the screen is great and I enjoy writing on it, but it's not a book/magazine replacement by a long shot.
ramraj07 3y ago
You gotta check your eyes out then first. Since the introduction of retina displays there’s no reason healthy adjusted eyes will have to feel tired or strained looking at them..
- clintfred 3y ago
  One reason might be the backlit display and the glossy screen. Glossy screens, especially, really strain my eyes.

akalajeu 3y ago

I am not a physist, but I have a hunch that the light hitting your eye from a direct light source is higher energy than that from a relected light source? E-ink is mechanical [1] so also relies on reflected light rather than being a light source. More energy would mean more stimulation? The eye was designed to look mainly at reflected light? There is potential damage from consistant over stimulation? Maybe its not a great idea to constantly shine light directly into your eyes? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Ink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Ink

light_hue_1 3y ago
> I am not a physist [sic] Correct! > but I have a hunch that the light hitting your eye from a direct light source is higher energy than that from a reflected light source? Incorrect! There's no concept of photons that have or have not been bounced, or are "direct" or "indirect". Also, you probably want to talk about intensity, not energy. Energy has to do with frequency (the color of light), intensity has to do with the amount of total light. > More energy would mean more stimulation? As it stands this says that blue light is more stimulating than red. Amusingly, this is true! But not in the sense that you meant it. It has to do with how our rods and cones work and how your circadian rhythm is calibrated. People use red light not to screw up their night vision so much. Perhaps you mean more intensity? That's actually false! Sunlight is incredibly strong. Far stronger than any artificial light you have normally. > Maybe its not a great idea to constantly shine light directly into your eyes? I'm sorry to say this would require the removal of your eyes. But seriously. What matters is not "direct" or "indirect" light, which is a meaningless concept. What matters is relative contrast. E-ink feels better because the contrast in intensity between it and the background you're on is lower.
- akalajeu 3y ago
  Thank you!!
- gus_massa 3y ago
  > Sunlight is incredibly strong. Far stronger than any artificial light you have normally. A few years ago, I wanted a photo near a window with one half on sunlight and the other half in shadows. I tried to adjust the camera, the distance, direct or indirect sunlight, the illumination inside the room to illuminate the "shadow". It was impossible, the sun is too bright compared with usual light sources. I finally gave up and faked it with gimp :) .

oslem 3y ago

I’m in my twenties and strongly prefer to read on paper over any screen. Partly because it’s easier on my eyes and partly because I like to markup the paper. I have yet to use something as seamless as a pen and paper for that.

zoomablemind 3y ago
Well, this is still in realm of using your own printer for the intended purpose. How many times researchers go find article PDF on notnamed site, then print it for reading and annotating, just as one would do with a copy from a printed journal.