New York Times have a train wreck of an article - you have to read it.
Update: So lots of people are commenting that the post is not an attack on the readability of eReaders and they’re right. It manages to be lots of things and an attack on eInk is not one of them. So my mistake.
What’s wrong with the New York Times article asking whether eReaders cause eye strain?
Claiming that Doctors said reading on a screen is harmless
The article makes a blanket statement -
First of all: doctors say that reading on a screen won’t cause any harm.
No, they didn’t. One doctor said this -
“The current problem with reading on screens is that we need to adjust our bodies to our computer screens, rather than the screens adjusting to us,” Dr. Meredith said.
You really mean to tell me that users are expected to adjust our bodies to their computer screens. Since when does what’s comfortable for technology take precedence?
The biggest reason this is all hogwash is that no comprehensive research has been done into the effect of LCD screens on eyes. It doesn’t matter what doctors feel – without research it has no more value than what your mother feels and she probably thinks screens cause eye-strain.
(Perhaps) Loading up the article against eReaders
Update: This whole section is probably invalid as lots of people don’t see any bias against ereaders.
The title of the article itself – Do eReaders cause eye strain?
Why ask whether eReaders causing eye-strain? The article is about reading on screens in general.
There’s also this gem -
E Ink has a very low contrast ratio. Although it can offer an excellent reading experience in bright sunlight, the screens can become uncomfortable to use in dark settings because of the lack of contrast and backlighting on the screen.
Is he really criticizing eInk for not being readable in dark settings? It doesn’t work in dark settings because, like a book, it is supposed to be used with a light.
Complete lack of coherence and direction
These are all the different questions and topics the articles tumbles through (without answering any) -
- Para 2: How does reading on a screen affect the eyes. (for the record – There’s no concrete answer to this anywhere – no one has researched it in depth).
- Para 3: Doctors say – reading on a screen won’t cause harm. Tell that to people who get headaches and eye strain.
- Para 4 and 5: Some Doctor who thinks we should adjust our bodies for the screens.
- Para 9: Club together eInk and IPS LCD as eReader display technologies.
- Para 10-13: Different screens for different situations hypothesis. This hypothesis is also not backed by any sort of research.
- Para 14, 15: New supposed secret to eliminate eye-strain – look away every 20 minutes. Again with no research to back it up.
- Para 16, 17, 18: Claim from someone who works for HP (sells 65 million displays a year) that the new LCDs don’t affect the eyes. Yeah – it’s not as if he has an incentive to lie about any problems there might be with LCDs.
All of this is in the same article – without any transitions or any research.
After reading this article here’s what you’d think -
- Reading on screens doesn’t cause eye strain. That means there must be something wrong with me.
- We should adjust our bodies for our screens. Wait a minute – thought screens didn’t cause any problems.
- We should use different screens for different purposes. What? Thought they don’t cause any problems.
- We should look away every 20 minutes and let our eyes rest. Totally confused now.
- LCDs don’t affect our eyes.
Here’s a better option – Let someone do some actual research and then write about it.
Until then let readers decide for themselves – let them test out eInk, test out LCD based ‘eReaders’, and test out computer screens.
Filed under: eBook Reader Devices Tagged: | bias, eink vs lcd
Huh? I’m confused. I just read teh new york times article and i didn’t see the writer say anything negative about the kindle? he said that differente screens make sense in different settings. Did I read teh wrong article?
No. Perhaps I’m just paranoid.
Where do you see the attack on eink? This paragraph explains that its different based on the reading circumstance:
“It depends on the viewing circumstances, including the software and typography on the screen,” said Mr. Bove. “Right now E Ink is great in sunlight, but in certain situations, a piece of paper can be a better display than E Ink, and in dim light, an LCD display can be better than all of these technologies.”
In the title and in all the parts my post has pointed out. Why would he title it the way he has if he didn’t want to attack eReaders?
Part of it is semantics, as a doc….if you ask me if reading on LCD hurts your eyes, I will say no. There is no evidence that it does physical or functional damage. That does not mean it is comfortable or pleasant.
@switch11, I think you might need to update this post and admit that you read into it a little incorrectly. I have to agree with the other 3 comments here. I think you are totally wrong with this post. Do ereaders cause eye strain? The article asks the question and then answers it. It’s not an attack on ereaders, its a discussion of why some screens work better in some settings.
Actually you’re right – it’s not an attack on ereaders. It’s just a poorly written post.
Though you know what – If I wanted to cast doubt on the fact that eReaders and eInk are better suited for reading than LCD – this is exactly the sort of post I’d write.
To confuse readers into thinking each has their advantages when the truth is that for reading books eInk is much better for most people.
[...] of my earlier posts making fun of New York Times’ post about eReader readability had some people thinking (and commenting) I’d misinterpreted the intentions of the [...]