4 ms·

I own the Kindle 1 and Kindle 2. So yes, I have used e-ink devices quite a bit :) The screen refresh on the K2 is waay, waaaaay better. Much less painful to ty

I own the Kindle 1 and Kindle 2. So yes, I have used e-ink devices quite a bit :) The screen refresh on the K2 is waay, waaaaay better. Much less painful to type and use UI elements. But I have learned not to use ref books on them not because of the slow UI/search (it's not so bad), but because I require a physical book for memory "wayfinding," to flip back and forth, to rescan, and remind myself, "hmm it was about in the last quarter of the book..." or "Where did I read about that study? I'm thinking... yellow book about yea big... aha, that one", etc. With a digital reader that always looks the same, and feels the same, you lose something. That is where the Kindles (et al) fall down - nothing to do with the screens, just that the natural UI of books is very good for these things.

stcredzero 17y ago
But I have learned not to use ref books on them not because of the slow UI/search (it's not so bad), but because I require a physical book for memory "wayfinding," to flip back and forth That's exactly what I'm talking about! If the Kindle 2 had better interactivity, there could be a highly responsive interface that could give you the same "wayfinding" feel. (Think of the flick-scroll contacts on the iPhone.) Such is impossible on the Kindle.
- blhack 17y ago
  A netbook-type replacement for the kindle isn't going to improve this at all. What is your point?
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    You can't implement a flick-scroll type interface without immediate feedback. A delay of 1 second or even an large fraction of a second makes this untenable. My point is not a Kindle replacement being a netbook. It's about being interactive. 1 second screen refreshes cripple interactivity. When I use text search to find things in electronic references, I find myself doing one find, quickly perusing the results, then often doing another refined search and perusing those results. Adding 1 second to each input is going to add something like a half-minute to each search session. That's death.
    - blhack 17y ago
      I think that your confusion here stems from your misunderstanding of the people who are in the market for the kindle. They're not using it for anything other than reading books, and most of them don't want to. You know what demographic represents a large portion of kindle users? The elderly. While we geeks might enjoy envisioning kindle users as the sort of technical elite that salivate over the kindle's wireless distribution model, or its e-ink screen, the people actually using the device don't care. It is a book reader, not a mobile computing platform, I'm not sure how hard I can drive this point home. The people who really are geeks (people that use websites like HN), carry things like netbooks around because they have real keyboards on them. Putting a real keyboard on the kindle would ruin it. The refresh time on the kindle's screen (kindle 2) is almost perfect. It is almost exactly the ammount of time that it takes my eyes to transition to the top of the page and continue reading. For me, the experience with the kindle is better than experiences I've had with dead-tree books. I (and I suspect the overwhelming majority of kindle users) hope that amazon never changes it.
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        No, this is your misunderstanding. (It comes across as quite insistent, actually. You're opposing views I don't hold, rather you are projecting them onto me.) I'm advocating a reader-type device for other uses like reference. I'm not talking about a Kindle replacement. I'm not advocating putting a real keyboard on such a device. A very flat pad with no hinges would be the best, actually. You're only talking about the narrow use-case of the Kindle. There are other use-cases for print media, and these represent additional markets. Kindle refresh time is good for linear reading of entire books. But this is not the only use case that print media satisfies! That's about a half-dozen things you misunderstood. (However, a device with the enhanced interactivity I am talking about would also be just as usable as a plain old eBook reader.)
    - grinich 17y ago
      The Kindle isn't for research. It's for reading. Just plain reading. And for most people, it's a great replacement for a stack of books they carry around. I don't think anyone's really trying to make it more than an eBook reader with some very basic search for purchasing content.
- ahoyhere 17y ago
  I really don't agree with you. An improved interface would still give you no physical memories, relative locational memory, "what size was the book" memories, or the kind of 1000ft view skimming can give you. When I've been working on my book, that I'm writing, I can tell you that there's no UI which could replace printing the sucker out and spreading it over the living room floor.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Have you not used flick-scroll? I definitely have a palpable sense of being in the middle, or at the end. Cover-flow gives me the same sort of sense. Perhaps this is not going to be as good as a real, physical book. But if you can find a workable analogue, this is a practical way of carrying a whole reference library with you at all times. That your interface is not as good is a workable trade-off for availability. You can always return to your desk or your library for intensive work sessions. Having wireless or mobile broadband to do searches is often not an adequate substitute for this. Often, the references one needs are not available for free because they are too esoteric or specific. I these cases, it's much better to be able to collect together specific references to carry with you. (Or otherwise make easily available.) An improved interface would still give you no physical memories, relative locational memory, "what size was the book" memories, or the kind of 1000ft view skimming can give you. Flick-scroll and cover-flow are attractive precisely because they tweak the our sense of manipulating the physical. I can imagine an interface that can utilize relative locational memory and the book's size. In fact, I think I've seen writeups of people's research on alternative desktop interfaces that are like this.
    - ahoyhere 17y ago
      Yes, of course I've used flick scroll. You don't think a HNer who owns 2 Kindles would own an iPhone? I have 3 iPhones! (Three! Three iPhones! Wah ha ha.) It's still not the same. You can't get AWAY from the content and get a higher/further view. It's different. Maybe I'm failing at explaining - but while flick scroll is BETTER, it still falls short. By a lot. I am most interested in KM and information science, and a book addict, and a crazy user interface designer. I have paid much attention to these things. :) BTW, there was that study a few days ago that said that physically taking a step back improved puzzle scores. How bout that?

stcredzero 17y ago

But I have learned not to use ref books on them not because of the slow UI/search (it's not so bad), but because I require a physical book for memory "wayfinding," to flip back and forth That's exactly what I'm talking about! If the Kindle 2 had better interactivity, there could be a highly responsive interface that could give you the same "wayfinding" feel. (Think of the flick-scroll contacts on the iPhone.) Such is impossible on the Kindle.

blhack 17y ago
A netbook-type replacement for the kindle isn't going to improve this at all. What is your point?
- stcredzero 17y ago
  You can't implement a flick-scroll type interface without immediate feedback. A delay of 1 second or even an large fraction of a second makes this untenable. My point is not a Kindle replacement being a netbook. It's about being interactive. 1 second screen refreshes cripple interactivity. When I use text search to find things in electronic references, I find myself doing one find, quickly perusing the results, then often doing another refined search and perusing those results. Adding 1 second to each input is going to add something like a half-minute to each search session. That's death.
  - blhack 17y ago
    I think that your confusion here stems from your misunderstanding of the people who are in the market for the kindle. They're not using it for anything other than reading books, and most of them don't want to. You know what demographic represents a large portion of kindle users? The elderly. While we geeks might enjoy envisioning kindle users as the sort of technical elite that salivate over the kindle's wireless distribution model, or its e-ink screen, the people actually using the device don't care. It is a book reader, not a mobile computing platform, I'm not sure how hard I can drive this point home. The people who really are geeks (people that use websites like HN), carry things like netbooks around because they have real keyboards on them. Putting a real keyboard on the kindle would ruin it. The refresh time on the kindle's screen (kindle 2) is almost perfect. It is almost exactly the ammount of time that it takes my eyes to transition to the top of the page and continue reading. For me, the experience with the kindle is better than experiences I've had with dead-tree books. I (and I suspect the overwhelming majority of kindle users) hope that amazon never changes it.
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      No, this is your misunderstanding. (It comes across as quite insistent, actually. You're opposing views I don't hold, rather you are projecting them onto me.) I'm advocating a reader-type device for other uses like reference. I'm not talking about a Kindle replacement. I'm not advocating putting a real keyboard on such a device. A very flat pad with no hinges would be the best, actually. You're only talking about the narrow use-case of the Kindle. There are other use-cases for print media, and these represent additional markets. Kindle refresh time is good for linear reading of entire books. But this is not the only use case that print media satisfies! That's about a half-dozen things you misunderstood. (However, a device with the enhanced interactivity I am talking about would also be just as usable as a plain old eBook reader.)
  - grinich 17y ago
    The Kindle isn't for research. It's for reading. Just plain reading. And for most people, it's a great replacement for a stack of books they carry around. I don't think anyone's really trying to make it more than an eBook reader with some very basic search for purchasing content.
ahoyhere 17y ago
I really don't agree with you. An improved interface would still give you no physical memories, relative locational memory, "what size was the book" memories, or the kind of 1000ft view skimming can give you. When I've been working on my book, that I'm writing, I can tell you that there's no UI which could replace printing the sucker out and spreading it over the living room floor.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Have you not used flick-scroll? I definitely have a palpable sense of being in the middle, or at the end. Cover-flow gives me the same sort of sense. Perhaps this is not going to be as good as a real, physical book. But if you can find a workable analogue, this is a practical way of carrying a whole reference library with you at all times. That your interface is not as good is a workable trade-off for availability. You can always return to your desk or your library for intensive work sessions. Having wireless or mobile broadband to do searches is often not an adequate substitute for this. Often, the references one needs are not available for free because they are too esoteric or specific. I these cases, it's much better to be able to collect together specific references to carry with you. (Or otherwise make easily available.) An improved interface would still give you no physical memories, relative locational memory, "what size was the book" memories, or the kind of 1000ft view skimming can give you. Flick-scroll and cover-flow are attractive precisely because they tweak the our sense of manipulating the physical. I can imagine an interface that can utilize relative locational memory and the book's size. In fact, I think I've seen writeups of people's research on alternative desktop interfaces that are like this.
  - ahoyhere 17y ago
    Yes, of course I've used flick scroll. You don't think a HNer who owns 2 Kindles would own an iPhone? I have 3 iPhones! (Three! Three iPhones! Wah ha ha.) It's still not the same. You can't get AWAY from the content and get a higher/further view. It's different. Maybe I'm failing at explaining - but while flick scroll is BETTER, it still falls short. By a lot. I am most interested in KM and information science, and a book addict, and a crazy user interface designer. I have paid much attention to these things. :) BTW, there was that study a few days ago that said that physically taking a step back improved puzzle scores. How bout that?