I think you raise good points, but what if we look at it from a perspective where paper books are not the norm: > it's still undoubted that the tactile feedbac

I think you raise good points, but what if we look at it from a perspective where paper books are not the norm: > it's still undoubted that the tactile feedback is much more vibrant, and engrossing than digital. If we look for book-like feedback in digital, we'll be disappointed. However, consider that many digital works, such as web pages, games, etc. provide much more feedback than books, and digital feedback can be fine-tuned for the story being told much more than paper books' interface. > Physical books are cognitively superior in that they allow a reader to firmly establish the progress of narrative through physical feedback. ... Digital reading however is totally abstract Again if books are the norm, then of course they meet that standard better than digital. Perhaps a more abstract experience is better, or better in some cases and worse in others. Maybe authors unconsciously have written for books and will write differently for digital. If digital had come first and was the norm, I think we would say that books have too much feedback, and they distract from the elements in the text that tell the story.