Subscribe
Jason Barker is Currently...
On-Screen Reading
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM by Jason Barker
if:book has an interesting post linking to an article by Cory Doctorow about reading text on a computer screen; Doctorow is specifically discussing reading novels, but his points can generally be extended to any long-form textual publication. Doctorow's thesis can be summarized in this quote: "The problem, then, isn't that screens aren't sharp enough to read novels off of. The problem is that novels aren't screeny enough to warrant protracted, regular reading on screens." I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly what Doctorow means by novels being insufficiently "screeny" to encourage reading electronic versions; it seems his point is that extended digital publications are currently insufficiently adapted to the typical computer user's activity of engaging in digital multitasking (which is too distracting when reading complex extended publications).
While interesting, I'm not sure that Doctorow's point is entirely accurate (I think his argument is more effectively related to attention spans and the discipline of reading than to the subject of the readability of text when published in various media). Nonetheless, he and if:book's Ben Vershbow make an important point when they say that the most common object to reading digital publications - the supposed lack of clarity of digital fonts and their subsequently reduced ease of reading - is no longer a serious objection to reading digital publications. While neither author goes into detail on this particular point, I believe that the increasing transition of computer users from CRT to LCD monitors erases most of the previously quite accurate objections to reading from screens: LCD monitors do not have the flicker from refreshing the screen that is a significant problem with CRT monitors (as I can tell you from bitter experience, prolonged reading from a low or standard-quality CRT monitor is quite conducive to headaches), and digital text is actually sharper than the text in most books (which have the problem of print slightly spreading from ink soaking into the paper).
I believe the issue of portable reading devices is more significant than Doctorow believes. For example, I would generally prefer to do my reading from electronic devices rather than printed publications - precisely for the reasons of easy searching and storage mentioned by Doctorow - but there are two significant limitations for me. First, while Doctorow is correct that iPods and other easily portable electronic devices allow for reading digital text, there is the significant problem that these devices require far more care and protection than does a printed publication. If I am reading in my recliner, or bed, I do not want to be continually vigilant to avoid dropping my electronic reading device, or to worry about it being knocked from my hands by a rampaging pet or accidentally damaged in some way by my three year-old son. Pets or child may occasionally rumple a printed publication, but they will seldom destroy it - the same could not necessarily be said about a sensitive electronic device. Secondly, as a commenter to Doctrow's article mentions, DRMs and the wide array of incompatible formats is a further obstacle to widespread reading of extended electronic publications.
These objections can of course be applied to my Bible studies, and they do limit somewhat the usefulness of such a digital publication. There is little that I can do at this time about these problems beyond make the text from these studies available in multiple formats - Shockwave and HTML - to maximize their availability and usefulness for readers. I believe that enabling users to print copies of the HTML version of the articles addresses a great deal of the "electronic or print" dilemma, and future technological advancements will eventually solve even more of these issues.
Another issue with on-screen reading that is not mentioned by Doctrow, but is directly addressed by Vershbow, is the formatting of text on the screen. Speaking from my experience, a problem with reading long-form publications on a screen is that - unless specially formatted - the screen presents a significantly greater "chunk" of text at one time than does a printed page. For example, the window in which I am typing this post is roughly 13.5" x 8.75" - this presents a far greater mass of text than does the page from a typical hardcover book, which typically has a text section (not including headers and footers) of less than 4.5" x 8". Text must be formatted so that it is "manageable," not presenting an overwhelming mass in a single view through which the reader must slog. Vershbow thus demonstrates one free application that formats RTF documents in columns with horizontal scrolling. Similarly, documents published in PDF allow documents to be formatted in the same conventional manner as printed publications (as well as avoiding much of the restricted formatting that plagues many e-publications and e-readers).
In addition to using PDF for my handout formats, I address readability issues in my Bible study applications by limiting the size of the article on the screen by putting it into a small window. Readers are therefore seldom confronted with more than one paragraph of text at a time.
There are many other things that I hope to incorporate into later applications - ability to print articles from the online application itself, ability to bookmark articles, etc. - but my concern for formatting issues is one example of some of the things I take into account when trying to maximize the usefulness of my Bible studies.
Posted in Miscellaneous