Monday, August 31, 2009

Computer screens are on the whole, terrible resolution. 72 dpi instead of 600dpi or higher. I'd like to experience some of the new hi res tablets.


Martin Bulmer tells me:

"Screens are on the whole, terrible resolution. 72 dpi instead of 600dpi or higher. I'd like to experience some of the new hi res hi contrast tablets. I conducted research on reading from screen vs reading from paper. The results were inconclusive because my experimental design was terrible (I was young what can I say).

Nevertheless, the literature was pretty conclusive 20 years ago, and the common perspective is not any different.

Recently I saw a rubbish 'raah raah' video for social media that was packed full of 'statistics have gone up by 150% since Facebook was invented'-type non facts.

There was something in there that suggested that a high percentage of books sold on Amazon are Kindle books. Would like to see that substantiated."

Reading on screens: "gandering"? - another word is nominated for reading on screens


An American writer living in Taiwan says: "I’d like to suggest ‘e-gandering.’As in "take a gander" at that! So.... ‘To take an e-gander’.... Electronic gandering, e-gandering, or clipped, just ‘gandering’ for short.

Another interesting word for reading on a screen. A reporter at the New York Times also suggested "diging" (digital reading) but noted some might find it hard to pronouce at first.

The list of nominated words is GROWING. Care to suggest one yourself? Do.

Chris F.A. Johnson on reading on paper surfaces and reading on screens: no fundamental difference, he says


Chris F.A. Johnson was kind enough to take some time to answer the questions below, his answers in BOLD. [Chris is an Author, Web designer, Chess Teacher, Cryptic Cruciverbalist, Computer Programmer/Consultant/Trainer.]


> 1. Since reading on paper is very different from reading on screens,
> do you think that at some point it might be USEFUL to coin a new word in > English
> for "reading on screens", ......yes or no?

No.

> 2. If YES, .....can you suggest any possible words for this new word: maybe
> scanning? screen-reading? screening? any other words you can think of
> that might work well here, words or terms?
>
> 3. A futurist inthe USA , a very well known person, tells me:
> "Screening" is not a new term, but this might just be the time that it
> catches on, given the imminent arrival of Apple's iPad, and other
> devices. The last time I heard it -- screening -- in this way -- was
> back in the late 1990s when the RocketBook and Softbook made their
> debut, but the term didn't do any better than the products did."
> do you agree with him that THIS might be the time SCREENING catches
> on? Yes or no or comments?
>
> 4. This furturist told me "This time around, screening is a clever and
> useful term capturing the fact
> that the experience reading on a screen is fundamentally different
> from reading on paper. Not a priori worse or better; just different."
> Do you agree with him here, yes or no or comments?

I disagree that there is a fundamental difference.

The difference is no greater than between a book and a magazine.

> 5. This futurist also told me ..."So definitley SCREENING is the right
> word for the moment in terms of drawing
> people's attention to the vast literary shift about to wash over
> us....Do you agree that we are now witnessing a vast literary shift
> about to wash over us? YES NO MAYBE? COMMENTS?

NO!!!!


> 7. Does reading on screens hamper or hinder our critical analysis
> skills of what we are reading?

It makes it easier.

> 8. If in the future most reading is done on screens, from computers to
> iPhones to Kindles to even textbooks on screens, could this hurt the
> critical thinking skills of young people to think, analyze and asess
> information?

Of course not. If anything, it makes analysis a lot easier because one
can quickly and easily search for references in the text
.

> 9. Do you think people will be reading on paper surfaces anymore in
> the year 2050? in the year 2099?

Yes. Yes.

> 10. Are you willing or ready to say goodbye to MR PAPER, and greet
> the SCREEN AGE with a complete open-minded welcome?

Why should it be one or the other? I read books both in dead-tree
versions and on line. There's no real difference.




[Chris F.A. Johnson's website is at http://cfaj.freeshell.org]

Trista di Genova on Reading on Paper and Reading on Screens


An online interview with American writer Trista di Genova in Taiwan:

[BACKGROUND INFO: Trista di Genova, MSt, Oxford University. Her award-winning blog "The Wild East": http://www.thewildeast.net/news
Her YouTube videos: http://www.youtube.com/digenovafilm]

1. Since reading on paper is very different from reading on screens,
do you think that at some point we might need a new word in English
for "reading on screens", yes or no?

Yes. It’s a good thing I read so many books before the Internet age. I may never read another book again!

2. If YES, can you suggest any possible words for this new word: maybe
scanning? screen-reading? screening? any other words you can think of
that might work well here, words or terms?

How about ‘e-perusal’? Web perusal. I’d like to suggest ‘e-gandering.’ ‘To take an e-gander’? Electronic gandering, electronic gandering, or ‘gandering’ for short.


3. A futurist inthe USA , a very well known person, tells me:
"Screening" is not a new term, but this might just be the time that it
catches on, given the imminent arrival of Apple's iPad, and other
devices. The last time I heard it -- screening -- in this way -- was
back in the late 1990s when the RocketBook and Softbook made their
debut, but the term didn't do any better than the products did."
do you agree with him that THIS might be the time SCREENING catches
on, based on your 2008 academic paper? Yes or no or comments?

No. Too dull a term.

4. This fururist told me "This time around, screening is a clever and
useful term capturing the fact
that the experience reading on a screen is fundamentally different
from reading on paper. Not a priori worse or better; just different."
Do you agree with him here, yes or no or comments?

Sounds a bit pompous to me.

5. This futurist also told me ..."So definitley SCREENING is the right
word for the moment in terms of drawing
people's attention to the vast literary shift about to wash over
us....Do you agree that we are now witnessing a vast literary shift
about to wash over us? YES NO MAYBE? COMMENTS?

It’s already hit. Everybody – at least most of the developed world -- reads online now.



7. Does reading on screens hamper or hinder our critical analysis
skills of what we are reading?

No, if we’ve already developed critical skills we have the tools we need to check, cross-check sources, have other, wider perspectives…While reading online, however, it is easier to get distracted by things such as banner ads, related links of interest, or the constant demand for multi-tasking…

8. If in the future most reading is done on screens, from computers to
iPhones to Kindles to even textbooks on screens, could this hurt the
critical thinking skills of young people to think, analyze and asess
information?

Yes, if they get stuck in mindless online activities such as gaming, gambling and so on.

9. Do you think people will be reading on paper surfaces anymore in
the year 2050? in the year 2099?

Hope not. Although as a writer, I don’t know of any more fulfilling a feeling than to see my work in print, in a chapbook or book form.

10. Are you willing or ready to say goodbye to MR PAPER, and greet
the SCREEN AGE with a complete open-minded welcome?

For the most part. But let’s keep our favorite texts handy for reference. Reading as memorabilia!

Sunday, August 30, 2009

The blog the Chronicle of Higher Education Doesn't Want You To Read

Really. They told me so in a form letter.

E-books could spell the end for hardbacks in print editions as "screening" takes over...


E-books and screening could spell the end for printed hardbacks, warns Hachette chief

By Ben Hall in Paris

August 30, 3009

Hardback books could be killed off if Amazon’s e-books and Google’s digital library force publishers to slash prices, Arnaud Nourry, chief executive of French publishing group Hachette, has warned.

Mr Nourry said unilateral pricing by Google, Amazon and other e-book retailers such as Barnes & Noble could destroy publishers’ profits.

He said publishers were “very hostile” to Amazon’s pricing strategy – over which the online retailer failed to consult publishers – to charge $9.99 for all its e-books in the US. He also pointed to plans by Google to put millions of out-of-copyright books online for public use.

“On the one hand, you have millions of books for free where there is no longer an author to pay and, on the other hand, there are very recent books, bestsellers at $9.99, which means that all the rest will have to be sold at between zero and $9.99,” Mr Nourry said.

There was a real and “muscular” debate in the industry in the US, he added. Retailers were paying publishers more than $9.99 for each e-book, so were selling them at a loss: “That cannot last . . . Amazon is not in the business of losing money. So, one day, they are going to come to the publishers and say: by the way, we are cutting the price we pay. If that happens, after paying the authors, there will be nothing left for the publishers.”

Some rival publishers have expressed concern in private at Amazon’s fixed $9.99 per title pricing on its Kindle electronic reader. Others note the minimal costs of distributing books electronically mean they can make higher profit margins even with lower prices than in print.

Mr Nourry’s comments come as analysts predict a growth spurt for the still-niche electronic reader market, with wireless devices from Sony, Plastic Logic and others due to compete with the Kindle.

Resistance to the Google books project from European libraries appears to be easing, with the National Library of France confirming this month that it was working with the US internet giant. But European publishers say they are determined to defend their rights.

Mr Nourry said Hachette – the world’s second largest publisher of books by sales – wanted to work with Google because of its formidable online presence. But he called on the group to be “more reasonable” in its dealing with French publishing houses.

This is an Open Kimono Blog, Completely Transparent, So Don't Hold Anything Back!

Just dish! Tell Zippy1300 your personal feelings about how reading on paper is different from ''reading'' on a screen. What's an Open Kimono blog, you ask? Google the term and yee shall see!

The cognitive mechanisms involved in reading and understanding texts online are sufficiently different from those involved in reading text on paper...

Dr Cohen adds: "Zippy1300 claims, and I believe rightly so, that the cognitive mechanisms involved in reading and understanding electronic texts are sufficiently different from those involved in reading printed books to justify the existence of a different word for reading e-text on your computer monitor, Kindle, BlackBerry, or iPhone."

Patrick at the University of Georgia in the USA says:I saw your recent posting on Linguist List regarding the need or use for a new word for reading on a screen, and I also
briefly scanned your blog, and just wanted to say.... I agree.

I think most
would also find the difference between text on screen and text on
paper to be salient enough as to warrant using a different word for
text on screen.

One may wonder if the word be coined and used widely
as a result of your question or via some other process....At any
rate, I thought it was a pretty interesting posting, so please keep
Linguist List informed should anything significant arise from it.

Israel Cohen in Israel likes screening, suggests "screading" instead


Israel Cohen writes via the linguist blog:

Dear Danny

The only thing wrong with your idea [of a new word for reading on screens, such as "screening"] is the fact that I didn't think of
it myself. Otherwise, it is a great idea whose time has come.

The most simple neologism is a meld or portmanteau formed by merging
SCREEN and READ to form SCREAD.

It satisfies your one-syllable criterion and has an obvious present
participle: SCREADING.

I predict you will receive more suggestions for this term than for any
other term.

Good Luck,
Israel "izzy" Cohen
ISRAEL

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Comparison of e-books with printed books


Comparison of e-books with printed books

Disadvantages

E-books cannot be "read" on paper, so reading on an e-book is not really reading, it is called "screening" now, and it is very different, some say inferior, to reading.

Reading e-books requires an electronic device and software. Books don't.

A small book is easier to carry around than a typical e-book reader.

E-book readers require electrical power; in the case of mobile use, the battery can get exhausted.

E-book readers are more fragile than paper books and more susceptible to physical damage.

E-book readers can malfunction and e-books can be damaged due to faults in hardware or software. Books really malfunction.

E-book readers are more likely to be stolen than paper books.

Depending on the device, an e-book may be difficult to read in bright sunlight, for example at the beach in the summertime or on a picnic anytime of year.

Most publishers don't produce the e-book equivalent of their printed books. In other cases the product quality is lower or it is released later.

E-books can be easily hacked through the use of hardware or software modifications and widely disseminated on the Internet and/or other e-book readers, without approval from the author or publisher. This ease of piracy is a significant drawback for publishers.

If an e-book device is stolen, lost, or broken beyond repair, all e-books stored on the device may be lost.

There is a loss of tactility and aesthetics of book-bindings. Also lost is the ability to very quickly riffle through the pages to search for a particular section or to get a sense of the book merely by sight.
Screen resolution of reading devices may be lower than actual paper.[6]
Due to the digital rights management reselling or lending out an e-book may have complications.
Some books available as e-book cannot be read on some e-book readers because they are not supplied in a format those readers allow.[citation needed]
While printed books remain readable for ages, changing technologies and less durable electronic storage media require e-books to be copied to a new carrier after some years.
E-book readers require various substances to produce, and are an environmental hazard as they're non-biodegradable.
Physical discomfort for some users, including eye strain.
More expensive, whereas used books are cheaper and most often only a few dollars can be lost or stolen at one time.
A book will never break, but an ebook device can break, and a lot of money can be lost at one time.
One will never read thousands of books really well or over a short period of time, so the high amount held on an ebook reader becomes irrelevant.
A book is safe from electromagnetic pulses and overloads.
A whole paper book is never broken beyond repair, unless entirely burnt or decayed.

Advantages

Text can be searched automatically and cross-referenced using hyperlinks.
A single e-book reader containing several books is easier to carry around (less weight and volume) than the same books (or sometimes even a single book) in printed form. Even hundreds or thousands of books may be stored on the same device. Using removable media even more can be carried around easily.
Also at a fixed place such as at home it can be an advantage that an e-book collection requires very little space.
Mobile availability of e-books may be provided for users with a mobile data connection, so that these e-books need not be carried around.
E-books can allow non-permanent highlighting and annotation.
Font size and font face can be adjusted.
E-books may allow animated images or multimedia clips to be embedded.
E-books allow for greater fidelity in colour reproduction compared to CMYK colour printing (although some e-book readers have only monochrome displays).
Depending on the device an e-book may be readable in low light or even total darkness. For devices for which this applies, energy consumption for reading without daylight is less than that of a lamp needed for reading a printed book.
An e-book can automatically open at the last read page.
While an e-book reader costs much more than one book, the electronic texts are generally cheaper. Moreover, a great share of books are available for free, without any charge at all. For example, all fiction from before the year 1900 is in the public domain.
Text-to-speech software can be used to convert e-books to audio books automatically.
An e-book can be offered indefinitely, without ever going "out of print".
Depending on possible digital rights management, it may be easy and cheap to produce a back-up for the case that the e-book is lost or damaged, and/or it may be possible to get a free new copy if that happens.
It is easier for authors to self-publish e-books.
A free e-book can stimulate the sales of the printed version.[4]
The production of e-books does not consume paper, ink, etc.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Kevin Kelly at Technium explains why he used to think technology was cool, used to think, repeat, used to think....


Kevin Kelly writes on his TECHNIUM blog:

[annotations by zippy1300 in CAPS]

The circle of my closest friends are fans and boosters of technology. [IT'S TRUE!] They unleash the technium for a living. [THAT'S TRUE, TOO! A BIG HUGE LIVING!] Their job is to discover new forms of machines, to invent new ways to leverage intelligence, and to create entirely new stuff. [AND MAKE TONS OF MONEY DOING SO WHILE AT THE SAME TIME GETTING A NICE BOOST TO THEIR CAREERS!] When I asked them about the inherent value in technology, the majority of the [SUPERWEALTHY VIP] technophiles I interviewed claim that technology is a means to an end, and therefore neutral. [SURE, A MEANS TO MAKE A NICE LIVING!] They generally hold an upscale version of "guns don't kill, people do." [OF COURSE!] We have a choice in how technology is applied, but fundamentally, they would say, technology is neither good nor bad, it's neutral. The good in technology comes from wise decisions in employing it. [THAT'S HOW THEY RATIONALIZE THEIR FANCY CARS AND FANCY HOMES IN POSH SECTIONS OF TOWN!]

To be honest, I used to feel the same way. [HOW DO YOU FEEL NOW, KEVIN?] History counseled that dynamite could be used to carve tunnels or blow up schools. Insecticides could boost crops or poison drinking water. GPS satellites can guide you if you are lost, or track you down with no place to hide. Surely the sum value of new invention was up to us. [SURELY]. And the idea that we choose the valence of technology's charge is very appealing to our egos. [WE HUMANS HAVE EGOS?] But it does not match the evidence of technology's rise, nor its deep roots in life and the cosmos. [TELL THAT TO THEIR ACCOUNTANTS!]

Note: are you reading this on paper or screening this blog post on a screen?

Nota bene: Is this why everyone thinks the Kindle and the other e-readers are so cool? Just neutral devices? THINK AGAIN, FOLKS!

http://zippy1300.blogspot.com

Not All Newspaper Readers Will Be "Reading the Paper" In the Future; Many of Them Will be "Screening the Paper" online


And there's a big difference! It's the difference beween radio and TV. It's the difference between poetry and novels. It's the difference between silent movies and talkies. It's the difference between the steam engine and the car. It's the difference between birds and airplanes. It's a big huge difference. In fact, it's the difference between reading and screening. Will the news industry be ready?

LINK:

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The Future of Newspapers: Tucking Your Computer Into the Daily Planet! Synergy Unbound! Read the Paper Version, Screen the Text Version Online!



The future has arrived.

-- Wired

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

"The Name Inspector" is writing a book, under contract with W.W. Norton & Co., about "microstyle"--


The Name Inspector is writing a book, under contract with W.W. Norton & Co., about "microstyle"--the verbal tools and tricks we use to create short messages that capture attention, stick in the mind, and roll off the tongue. Watch for it!

I screen, you screen, we all screen -- or do we?

I screen, you screen, we all screen -- or do we?

by Dan E. Bloom





Alex Beam, writing a column in the June 19 issue of the Boston Globe,
began his piece by asking his readers, in the print edition of the
paper and online: "Do we read differently on the computer screen from

how we read on the
printed page?"


Beam introduces reading specialist Anne Mangen of the Stavanger
University in Norway, who said an academic paper published in Britain
last year that screen reading and page reading are
very different and that more studies need focus on this issue.


"The feeling of literally being in touch with the text is lost when
your actions - clicking with the mouse, pointing on touch screens, or
scrolling with keys or on touch pads - take place at a distance from
the digital text, which is, somehow, somewhere inside the computer,

the e-book, or the mobile phone,’’Beam quoted Dr Mangen as writing.


She added: “Materiality matters. . . . One main effect of the

intangibility of the digital text is that of making us read in a
shallower, less focused way.’’


When Mr Beam asked Dr Mangen by email if she thought there might be a future
convergence of Kindle reading and Gutenberg reading, she emailed him
back in reply:


“Reading digital text will always differ from reading text that is not
digital (i.e., that has a physical, tangible materiality), no matter
how reader-friendly and ‘paper-like’ the digital reading device (e.g.,
Kindle etc.). The fact that we do not have a direct physical, tangible
access to the totality of the text when reading on Kindle affects the
reading experience. When reading a book we can always see, and feel
with our fingers and hands, our progress through the book as the pile
of pages on the left side grows and the pile of pages on the right
side gets smaller. At the same time, we can be absolutely certain that
the technology [the book] will always work - there are no problems
with downloading, missing text due to technical or infrastructure
problems, etc."Mangen added that the e-reader experience introduces “a degree

of unpredictability and instability’’ that influences reading, even if
we are not aware of it.


Beam then quoted William Powers, who wrote "a romantic
defense of the ancient medium I publish in". Powers' 75-page essay,

“Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Why Paper Is Eternal,’’ -- set to be come a book
in the middle of 2010 from HarperCollins -- was widely quoted in the

blogosphere, with this passage often noted, and Beam noted it too:


“There are cognitive, cultural, and social dimensions to the
human-paper dynamic that come into play every time any kind of paper,
from a tiny Post-It note to a groaning Sunday newspaper, is used to
convey, retrieve, or store information.’’

Powers concluded: “It becomes a still point, an anchor for the
consciousness. It’s a trick the digital medium hasn’t mastered - not
yet.’’


So here's a question, now that you have scrolled down to the bottom
of this seemingly endless, bottomless Web page -- another of the drawbacks
to reading on screens, it might be noted: are you "screening" (to coin
a neologism)
this on a screen or are you reading it on paper?

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Federal Trade Commission studying the differences between "reading newspaper on paper versus "screening" news sites online"



Just about everyone, from the general public to news executives, has an opinion about the future of journalism. Now, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is stepping into the debate.

Yes, the Federal Trade Commission is now studying the differences between "reading newspaper on paper versus screening news site online".


Jon Leibowitz is the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. His wife is a Washington Post newspaper reporter, Ruth Marcus. The commission is planning two days of workshops in December — entitled “From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” and "Are We Reading Newspapers on Paper or Are We Screening News on Screens Now and in the Future?" — to examine the state of the news industry.

More often, the F.T.C. tends to organize workshops related to consumer protection issues like mortgage fraud. But Leibowitz, the commission's chairperson, says the agency has taken a look at other industries, through workshops on hospital competition, food marketing and the patent system. Journalism’s future -- in the reading versus screening debate, especially -- falls in the agency’s purview, he said.

“Competition among news organizations involves more than just price,” Mr. Leibowitz said in an interview. "It's also about reading versus screeeing."

Full Complete Blogger Disclosure: Leibowitz is married to Ruth Marcus, an editorial writer at The Washington Post. But he said the commissioners, who are a mix of Democrats and Republicans and Luddites, are supportive of the workshops.

Though some may be uncomfortable with government oversight of any aspect of journalism, the F.T.C. seems to be “attempting to play a facilitating and public educational role in gathering together various disciplines and perspectives to talk about the crisis in mainstream journalism, including the differences between reading on paper and screening online,” said Neil "Hank" Henry, a professor and dean at the graduate school of screening at the University of California, Berkeley. “The government’s willingness to raise the profile of this reading versus screening issue, and to help explain why it is important for a national conversation, I think in general is welcome.”

That being said, the industry may still have to fend for itself for solutions to its major problems.

“That, in the end, will be the work of journalists, business thinkers, entrepreneurs, engineers, technologists and the people ourselves,” Mr. Henry said.

A paper report on printed paper that can also be screened on one's Kindle or PDA will be issued after the workshops that may make recommendations to lawmakers on changes in policies on anything ranging from taxation of news organizations to copyright issues, Leibowitz said. He said no specific issues had been chosen, other than the reading versus screening issue.

“We really want to keep an open mind,” Leibowitz said. The workshops will help because “we don’t have a sense empirically of the nature of the problem,” he said.

Martin Bulmer in New Zealand on how we read and don't read in this new PAPER vs SCREEN Age....


Martin Bulmer currently lives in New Zealand where he serves as General Manager, Wellington Office at NV Interactive. In addition, he twitters at Toa5t and occasionally posts at Boxes and Arrows. He has more than 15 years experience as a business-focused Internet professional offering specialist skills and depth of experience in user experience, user interface design and information architecture (IA) as well as consultative sales, developing digital strategies, innovation and problem solving. He also has beaucoup experience running web teams and web projects.


So Zippy13oo was pleased to see Martin's comment at Boxes and Arrows recently, which he also tweeted about, saying, in response to this blog's ongoing research into the differences between reading on paper and reading on screens:

MARTIN BULMER: Hi Zippy1300! All I can say is that the comment system of B+A sure discourages reading from screen. Yes, we'll be reading from paper. if for no other reason than it'll still be around; there's just too much value in them thar pages. BUT paper, generally, does not run out of batteries, can respond well to serious abuse (being dropped, wetted, folded, torn, stuck back together, written on and thumbed repeatedly) and has a number of useful cues and affordances. You can tell how far through the book you are; you can use this method to estimate your position should you drop the bookmark. you can scan the pages quickly because you remember quite a lot about the shape of paragraphs. Being reflective rather than luminant it is more often than not easer on the eye. Most importantly, these sorts of cues don't have to be taught explicitly; they come as baggage with the teaching of reading. I don't know about you, but if I switch off my concious focus when reading on screen I have to go back and read again; it seems to require 'active reading'. Reading a book on the other hand is more often refered to as 'relaxing'... I'd be very surprised if different parts of the brain didn't light up..."

Monday, August 24, 2009

Why "screening" will take off as a new word for reading on screens



Why "screening" will take off as a new word for reading on screens --
but later, soon, but not now!


SEE:
"Five Stages of Idea Acceptance" outlined by Chic Thompson in What a
Great Idea! 2.0
:

1. At first, people will say the word "screening" is irrelevant to the situation.
2. Then they will say: It's relevant, but it's unproven.
3. Then: It's proven, but it's not needed.
4. Then: It's useful and may well serve a good purpose, but it's not coinable.
5. Finally, once they "get" it: It's a great neologism, what a great idea! Useful! Very useful!

Introducing! The Bindle! A New Reading Device! Will Change the World!



Introducing! The Bindle! A New Reading Device! Will Change the World!

Doesn't crash!

No Eye Strain!

Take It Anywhere!

Okay on Airplanes!

No Wifi Needed!

No plug-ins!

Lend! Borrrow! Burn!

Touch It! Feel It!

Shelve it!

Gaze at it!

Bedside Table Okay!

Smells Just Like Paper!

Feels Like Paper, too!

Reads like paper! (YAY!)

Coffee Stains Okay!

Autographed Copies! Yes!

Underline! Highlight!

Write in the margins!

Annotatable!

Irreplacable! (Also replacable...)

INTRODUCING! -- THE BINDLE!

aka "THE BOOK"

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Professor Michael Abramson and Screening and Reading

Michael is Deputy Head of the Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine and visiting medical officer in Allergy, Immunology & Respiratory medicine at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. He graduated in Medicine from Monash University in 1979 and received his PhD from the University of Newcastle in 1990 for research into occupational asthma. His current research program covers the epidemiology of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including genetic and environmental risk factors such as air pollution and occupation, and the role of spirometry in managing these conditions. This work has been supported by the National Health & Medical Research Council, Department of Human Services, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Australian Lung Foundation and Asthma Victoria. He also provides epidemiological expertise to the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research.

Michael currently teaches epidemiology and Evidence Based Clinical Practice to medical students and coordinates the Graduate Diploma / Master of Clinical Epidemiology and Doctor of Public Health at Monash University. He holds or has held positions on NHRMC and Health Research Council of New Zealand Grant Panels, and committees of the Australian Lung Foundation, Thoracic Society of Australia & New Zealand, Asthma Victoria and the National Asthma Council. He was a member of the Scientific Committees for the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology conference, the International Symposium on Epidemiology in Occupational Health and the Australasian Epidemiological Association conference. He has been an invited speaker at a number of international meetings.

He has invented the first brain scan that allows doctors to see the physical evidence of the differences between paper reading and screen reading....

David Harrington-Smith is a professor of psychiatry who directs the Reading Versus Screening Research Center. Neurological American named him one of the world's top innovators in science and technology, and he frequently appears on The Today Show, Good Morning America, 20/20 and CNN.

DHS has invented the first brain scan that allows doctors to see the physical evidence of the differences between reading on paper surfaces compared to reading on computer screens and Kindle and iPhone screens. Among his research studies, he now leads a team of neuroscientists who are demonstrating that exposure to ''screen-reading'' -- as Dr Marvin Minsky at MIT Media Lab likes to call it -- causes rapid and profound changes in brain neural circuitry.

-- posted by my BlackBerry on August 32, 3009

Kevin Kelly, Paul Saffo, Marvin Minsky, Gary Small, Anne Mangen, Maryanne Wolf

I told this to Kevin Kelly today at his Technium blog:

Another thing that also needs to be studied, Kevin. I am convinced that reading on paper (“reading”) is so very different from reading on screens (“screening”, or as Marvin Minsky at the MIT Media Lab likes to call it, “screen-reading”) both mentally and emotionally, and not a prioro better or worse, just different, as Paul Saffo has said, that we need to study these differences in terms of which parts of the brain light up and in what different kinds of ways when we read on paper and when we “screen” online or on a Kindle. I would love to see Gary Small use MRI scans to study how sustained reading on paper and sustained screening on a screen differ in terms of brain chemisty and what this might mean for the future of the technium. I am sure the frontal pole, anterior temporal region, and the hippocampus regions of the brain are impacted very very differently when we read on paper from when we screen-read on screens. We need to study this. Anne Mangen in Norway and Maryanne Wolf at Tufts have already dipped their toes into the water here. Read them. Gary Small, study THIS!

Dear Technology Review:

A letter that might be published in August 2025, although I sent it in in June of 2009. Sigh. Things sometimes get lost in the mail.

Dear Editor,

In a recent editor's note by Jason Pontin in the April-May 2009 magazine noted that newspapers and
magazines will be around in the future, but perhaps
in different forms. I agree.

And I also wonder if in the future we
might need a new word to differentiate the kind of reading we do
online (or on computer or Kindle screens) from the kind of reading we
do on paper surfaces.

I have heard a few new terms being bandied about
on the Internet: screening, browsing, perusing, scanning. Reading is
reading, of course. But we might not be "reading" the new newspapers
and magazines of the future. We might be "screening" them.

Danny Bloom

AUGUST 21, 2025 [posting here from the future]

Steve Kauffman on reading and "screening" - he says he does not think we need a new word for reading on screens, it's still READING...

Steve Kaufmann of www.thelinguist.blogs.com and www.lingq.com states his answers below in BOLD LETTERS:



1. Since reading on paper is very different from reading on screens,
do you think that at some point it might be USEFUL to coin a new word in English
for "reading on screens", ......yes or no?


No


2. If YES, .....can you suggest any possible words for this new word: maybe
scanning? screen-reading? screening? any other words you can think of
that might work well here, words or terms?

> 3. A futurist inthe USA , a very well known person, tells me:
> "Screening" is not a new term, but this might just be the time that it
> catches on, given the imminent arrival of Apple's iPad, and other
> devices. The last time I heard it -- screening -- in this way -- was
> back in the late 1990s when the RocketBook and Softbook made their
> debut, but the term didn't do any better than the products did."
> do you agree with him that THIS might be the time SCREENING catches
> on? Yes or no or comments?


No. Reading is reading. If some people read on a Kindle, or on their computer, they are still reading, in my view. They are converting symbols into meaning.
>
>
> 4. This furturist told me "This time around, screening is a clever and
> useful term capturing the fact
> that the experience reading on a screen is fundamentally different
> from reading on paper. Not a priori worse or better; just different."
> Do you agree with him here, yes or no or comments?

No. Our brains process the meaning that the symbols convey. However, we are more likely to search for more information while reading on a screen. It is less relaxing than reading a book.
>
>
>
>
> 5. This futurist also told me ..."So definitley SCREENING is the right
> word for the moment in terms of drawing
> people's attention to the vast literary shift about to wash over
> us....Do you agree that we are now witnessing a vast literary shift
> about to wash over us? YES NO MAYBE? COMMENTS?

No. A book, a papyrus scroll, a lead tablet, it does not matter. It is reading something that has been recorded in the form of symbols.
>
>
> 6. Is there any research yet that speaks about the way that different
> parts of the brain light up when people read on paper compared to when
> they read on a screen? Has anyone studied it this way yet? Can it be
> studied this way? Do you think it is possible that different parts of
> the brain light up when we read on paper vs reading on screens? Might
> PHD people do research on this in the future.? how could one conduct
> such research? with MRI machines? brain scans?

No idea.
>
> 7. Does reading on screens hamper or hinder our critical analysis
> skills of what we are reading?

No effect. No effect. The difference is that we have access to more resources. Critical analysis is a matter of a wide range of reading experiences and life experiences and is not influenced by the medium we are using to read. We are more easily distracted reading on a computer since we can click on links or go to search for information. On the other hand, I find myself going to the computer to search for information even while reading books.
>
>
> 8. If in the future most reading is done on screens, from computers to
> iPhones to Kindles to even textbooks on screens, could this hurt the
> critical thinking skills of young people to think, analyze and asess
> information?

It will have no effect. Most pleasure reading will be done off screen, with work-related or study-related reading done on screens.
>
>
> 9. Do you think people will be reading on paper surfaces anymore in
> the year 2050? in the year 2099?

Yes. Paper is a great invention.
>
>
> 10. Are you willing or ready to say goodbye to MR PAPER, and greet
> the SCREEN AGE with a complete open-minded welcome?
> posted by dan at 7:11 AM

I use the computer a lot. I would happily use a Kindle if it could accommodate language-learning software like LingQ. I even bought an e-book reader to try it out (Jetbook). I prefer books if there is no functionality involved. I think a lot of people will continue to do so.

- Steve Kaufmann

www.thelinguist.blogs.com
www.lingq.com

Saturday, August 22, 2009

E-books, E-Ink, Reading, Screening versus Reading, The future is here:

The possibilities, including books with scored soundtracks and video
inserts, are just becoming clear.


"Once people can
flip between books, look up references online and switch to an audio reading,
everything will change very quickly."

Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol" will be downloaded and "read on screens", that is to say, "screened', that is to say people will be "screening" it.....

Dan Brown's American publishers, Knopf DoubleDay, has told Zippy1300 that an e-book of the book, to be downloaded and read on screen -- that is to say, to be screened by people who will be screening it on a screen -- will be released
simultaneously with the print paper edition of the novel.

What is "viewsing" -- ? Maybe another word to use for the new kind of "reading" we do on screens?

A friend tells me, [he is a professor of journalism in the USA]:

"There have been a number of attempts to coin a new word - several of them, really - for what's going on [in the new print/screen landscape of books and newspaper and the global Internet.

For the presentation itself, one recent textbook proposed "printcasting," a word I rather like, though it still implies that this is simply a fusion of broadcasting and print when it is much more than that, especially when you take inter-activity into account.

Another term that has come up -- beginning back in 1995 -- is "viewser," which I initially found a bit awkward but have come to like. Again, the idea that the viewer is now also an interactive user. So maybe "viewsing"?

I have no objection to "screening," but as with some others on your blogsite, I think some of the previous [earlier multimple] definitions don't make it ideal, either."

"...maybe as things like e-paper advance and become more common, it will also become common to say "wait a second, let me get my screen." In that case, "screening" might well work its way into the language."

Interesting! VIEWSING! I like it, too!

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/viewser/

viewser

noun:

defintion: a viewer and user of digital or online media that combine interactivity with traditional broadcast entertainment.

Key words: English, Entertainment, Media, Online, Technology, Jargon

Citations: 1995 Greg Roach New Scientist (Sept. 23) “Into the vortex” p. 3030: The idea that the “viewer” is truly participating is somewhat misleading at this stage of devlopment and some interactive film makers believe a term like “viewser” (from “viewer” and “computer user”) would be more appropriate because the state of the art is more to do with combining features of both films and computer games.

1997 Samela Harris The Advertiser (Adelaide, Australia) (Aug. 20): This organisation seems inordinately preoccupied with its visitors, or “viewsers” as it quaintly calls them.

1999 Rafael Osso Handbook of Emerging Communications Technologies (Aug. 26) p. 305: The display device for the data broadcast service would typically be the television receiver connected to a set-top box of some sort and destined for a target group of viewer/users (or as Gary Arlen, of Arlen Communications prefers, viewsers). That would put the traditional television service and the enhanced broadcast service in the same user environment, on the same platform.

2000 Jane Freeman Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) (Jan. 3) “Beyond The Box” p. 2: The aim is no longer simply to entertain but to engage the viewer/ user (viewser?) in a multitude of life-enhancing services, such as video phone, hundreds of channels, online browsing, video on demand, PC capabilities, etc.

2006 Ron Wolfe Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock) (June 25) “Leslie Anne Doubleday Heizman”: Now, the technology is so advanced and changing, even the industry word for a person who watches TV has changed, Heizman says. It used to be “viewer.” The new word is “viewser.” Today’s viewser doesn’t necessarily watch TV. He might click to the station’s Website, instead.

[commonsensej]

/2004/04/simple-is-good-but.html]

The death of newspapers, part 1: 1910 The internet is not the first innovation to threaten the future of newspapers. In the first of a series

The death of newspapers, part 1: 1910

The internet is not the first innovation to threaten the future of newspapers. In the first of a series looking back at previous crises, we examine a sea change in the industry in the early 20th century




Daily Mail founder Sir Alfred Harmsworth, Lord Northcliffe, circa 1917. Photograph: Hulton Archive

Newspapers as we know them are dying. So what else is new? Even the most triumphant chapters of British newspaper history – the ones in which total circulation is doubling or tripling – contain the disappearance of brand names nurtured over centuries, and the collapse of business models that sustained whole dynasties of proprietors.

Francis Williams, author of the press history Dangerous Estate, notes the closure of at least 225 weeklies and 21 out of 41 regional morning dailies between 1921 and the publication of his book in 1957. These are the years that were the industry's greatest period of sales growth. However, the ranks of national papers and local evening titles were also thinned over that time, and there was another wave of closures soon to come.

Williams, like many others since, sensibly chose to tell the story of the press through the leaders of its various revolutions: Northcliffe at the Mail; Beaverbrook at the Express; Bartholomew and Cudlipp at the Mirror; later writers add Rupert Murdoch. But we in today's old media may discover more in common with those the revolutions swept away. With the people at all those hundreds of vanished papers. They may even have things to teach us.

This is the first blogpost in a whistle-stop tour of upheavals and mass extinction events in 20th-century British newspapers. Other posts in the series will look at the closures and consolidations of the 1920s; the upheaval that came with commercial television and rising costs in the late 1950s and into the 1960s; and, if I can read ahead fast enough, the flowering – and withering – around Wapping. I'm not a professional historian and I lived through none of these events, so corrections and expansions in comments are welcome – and almost certainly necessary. I'm hoping to learn something, too.

We are starting in 1910 because it's the publication date of a novel. A Hind Let Loose, by CE Montague, then chief leader-writer of the Manchester Guardian, shows us a part of Britain's newspaper ecology at the turn of the last century; a regional press that was stable, smug – and about to be hit by a meteorite. It also shows us the arrival of a new dominant newspaper species, a locally produced halfpenny popular paper, which would itself come under threat from London-based rivals.

Our scene is Halland, a Manchester-like northern town – "like some others, the second city of the Empire" – in about 1900. Like any respectable second, third or fourth city of the Empire, Halland has two proud rival morning papers, one Tory and one Liberal, and a great mass of subsidiary newsprint: condensed weekly versions of each party daily; matching murder-filled evening papers, and not only their Saturday football pink 'uns or green 'uns but also further sporting papers for betting men.

It's all locally, and complacently, owned: the main plot concerns the party papers' two proprietor-editors, and what they do when they discover that their chief leader-writers are in fact the same man. Somewhere offstage, that local dominance is beginning to change: groups are developing, under the control of sound businessmen who cannot contemplate a world without such vital papers as the Sheffield Independent and the Birmingham Gazette, and see the need for a mechanism to preserve them.

Naturally, the novel doesn't contain so much as a whisper about radio or television: wireless telephony was cutting-edge stuff, and greater thought had been given to its use for military and shipping messages than to any idea of broadcasting. More startling is the absence of any sense of national press competition – the only out-of-town paper mentioned in 250 newsprint-saturated pages of A Hind Let Loose is a single copy of Police News.

Even so, there is an apocalyptic threat. The established proprietors, Brumby of the Warder and Pinn of the Stalwart, talk about him in the half-joking manner of Fleet Street editors discussing Yahoo in the late-1990s: "This man ... who was going to send them all to the workhouse with his new halfpenny paper." The man's name is George Roads. He already owns one title in Scotland and one in England. And he talks of his Halland halfpenny paper – that's half or less the price of the older titles, and cheap enough to attract the new literate public that has grown since the 1870 Education Act – as if he's about to found the Daily Mail:

"Why, look about you; take a business man, average business man. He's got no party; not such a fool. He's fluid, not frozen all up. First this way a bit, then that way a bit – that's him. And d'you tell me he doesn't get up, every morning, fair itching to be rubbed a way no paper in this place has ever rubbed him yet? Kept in touch with – that's what he wants to be."

"What's 'kept in touch with'?

"Told he's right."

But Roads has little to do with Lord Northcliffe, and his paper isn't the Mail. His history – starting as a compositor for one of the penny papers, being sacked for smuggling out racing information, and then setting up a racing paper of his own – matches the seamier side of the Manchester press baron Edward Hulton, who began in a similar way. (His son, Sir Edward Hulton, carried on the family tradition: he is said to have won round recalcitrant printers at the London Evening Standard by giving them personal racing tips.) That would make the ominous halfpenny paper something like the Daily Dispatch, founded by the younger Hulton, a national popular title launched from Manchester in 1900 that sold in the hundreds of thousands and survived for five decades.

The Brumbys and the Pinns were right to be afraid. In the decade after Montague's novel was published, the traditional, socially select regional press was devastated by competition from new papers with lower prices and vastly larger circulations, that offered a much better cost-per-reader ratio to advertisers. Manchester lost its old Tory morning paper, the Courier, in 1916. Between 1889 and 1913, according to David Ayerst's history of the Guardian, more than a third of the 42 penny morning papers then published outside London either closed or cut their prices to chase the new market. By the end of the first world war, the world of A Hind Let Loose had largely vanished: it is the first in our collection of dead newspaper sectors.

But the world of its coming man, George Roads, was also to disappear. Two days after the Dispatch launched, the Daily Mail started its northern edition; and Fleet Street competition eventually rolled over the separate Manchester national press. The Dispatch shut in 1955, merged with the London-based News Chronicle. At the time of its closure, it still sold about half a million, but it faced rivals with circulations nearly 10 times that.

Five years later, in 1960, the News Chronicle itself closed, and the shuffling of printing contracts that followed killed the last of the Hulton-founded Manchester nationals, a 2m-circulation Sunday paper called the Empire News. This paper's printing press space went to the News of the World, then selling more than 8m. The previous year, the other remaining northern national had dropped the "Manchester" from its masthead and became the Guardian, as it began the process of relocating to London.

Moral: being in the vanguard of a revolution does not guarantee that it will treat you kindly, as the national papers that have invested heavily in online news are discovering afresh. It does not even guarantee that your death will be remembered.

Why are many people resistant to a new word for reading on screens, whatever that word might turn out to be? Good question.

When I asked a professor in California

"WHY IS Everyone telling me SCREENING is a
lousy word because it has earlier multiple meanings ....when in fact many WORDS
have multiple meaings........even READING has multiple meanings that even precede READING to mean reading a book? Maybe people really just objecting to my
novel idea, and this is their way of rejecting the idea and the concept at first glance? Maybe?"


The wise professor said:

''People are resistant to many sorts of innovations, both new words for old senses and new senses for old words. What they usually say is: why do we need this? In the second case, they complain about ambiguity, though what they're really exhibiting is a reluctance to cope with the need to interpret the words in context in ways that are unfamiliar to them.''

Well said. I wish I had said that myself. Thanks Professor!

Sara Nelson: Will she be screening Dan Brown's new novel on her Kindle or reading it on her Bindle?

The Da Winci Coda sequel is striking fear in authors like Pat Convoy and Marry McMurtry, who want their books on shelves before The Lost Symbol. Sara Nelson asks: Is Dan Broom publishing’s angel or demon?

Who’s afraid of Big Bad Dan Broom?

Everybody in Book Land it seems. To those who work at Doubleday, Broom’s publisher, the September 15 publication date of The Lost Symbol.... read MORE

Dan Brown "The Lost Symbol" -- Will you be screening it on your Kindle or reading it on paper?

Dan Brown's publisher of "The Lost Symbol" announced that the electronic version of the book will hit cyber-shelves on the same day that physical book appears in bookstores -- on Sept. 15, 3009.

There are more than 280 billion copies of Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" in print worldwide; "The Lost Symbol," a follow-up, also features protagonist Tom Hanks, noted Tufts symbologist.

Will readers snap up copies of the new book after a six-year break? The publisher certainly hopes so. Its original print run was said to be a mammoth 246.05723 million copies. That's paper versions of the book only -- there won't be any advance tallies of e-books. So Sara Nelson, will you be screening Danny's new book or reading it on paper?

Reading on Paper versus Reading on a Screen: part 12

"I don't know if anybody else is like me .....but I find it nearly impossible to read a whole book on a computer. I'm on holiday at the moment so am spending around six to eight hours a day reading on the computer..... but I can only read short articles or blogs. Even a mere 35-page article, such as Fallis's paper on lying that a friend recommended ....I printed it out on paper so I don't have to read it on screen!

It's not a question of time. I will easily read the equivalent of a couple of hundred pages on a screen, but ten pages seems to be about the most I can read one continuous article for."

Someday There Will Be E-Books in the Shape (and Texture) of Books

Guess who said that? I think it is very prophetic, too.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Literature Professor Speaks About the Differences Between Reading on Paper and Reading on a Screen


A well-known magazine essayist and Yale literature professor tells me via email: [webposted August 25, 2009]

Dear Mr Bloom,

Regarding your "screening" idea and campaign .... the crucial difference, it seems to me, is not between reading a screen and reading a printed page per se.

One can read, say, a novel on both, and I suspect there will be no essential difference for the brain (the eyes are another matter).

The real issue is the way people read on screen: the skipping, the skimming, the link-jumping, etc. And yes, I'm sure such changes would show up on a brain scan, and I daresay that that work is already being done or will be soon. It seems like people are brain scanning everything now.

As for a new term that will capture the phenomenon, the main problems with your suggesion of the word "screening," as I see it, are these:

1. It already means something else.
2. It's not very catchy.
3. People who read online are actually reading, even if they are reading differently.
4. New phenomena are far more often captured by shifts of or expansions in the meanings of existing words rather than through the coinage of new words.

However, if you want to call attention to the new phenomenon, an entirely new word..... would...... I feel..... be much more effective.

Yes, I agree that the new technology is affecting people's ability to think critically. This is not a new observation; people have been talking about this for a long time, and before that, there were saying it (justly) about television.

And yes, I do think we are at the beginning of a new literary age, a change that may ultimately prove as significant as the invention of printing.

What it will look like is anyone's guess.

As for whether we will still be reading printed books by the middle or end of the century, I would have been inclined a few months ago to say absolutely not. But now it seems like the codex (book) may prove to be a more resilient technology than we thought, simply because of its great utility. It has endured ever since it displaced the scroll about 2000 years ago, and it may continue to endure.

This is a good discussion you are sparking, and thanks for inviting me to say my say, too.

Signed,

_________ _ ____________
New Haven

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Thad McIlroy on the Future of Publishing and Reading on Paper and Screens

Thad McIlroy, who runs a very good blog out of Vancouver called The Future of Publishing has kindly taken some time to answer my questions about the future of reading (on paper and on screens) and his answers are below in bold letters:


1. Since reading on paper is very different from reading on screens,do you think that at some point we might need a new word in English for "reading on screens", yes or no?


I don't think that's very important. There's talk that there will soon be introduced into the vocabulary "Kindling a book." OK. Not thrilled with that phrase, but I'll get over it. "Reading on screens" is clear enough to me. If a term emerges, fine. But surely that's not the key issue here.

ZIPPY1300 Editor's note: "To kindle" is already an accepted very for reading on a Kindle. Many Kindle owners use this language already. See definition here at Urbandictionary.com
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kindle

ALSO: "screening" for reading on a screen, any kind of screen, Kindle screen, computer screen, PDA screen, iPhone screen, has also been accepted by the UrbanDictionary editors at Google HQ here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=screening

2. If YES, can you suggest any possible words for this new word: maybe scanning? screen-reading? screening? any other words you can think of that might work well here, words or terms?

N/A

3. A futurist inthe USA , a very well known person, tells me: "Screening" is not a new term, but this might just be the time that it catches on, given the imminent arrival of Apple's iPad, and other devices. The last time I heard it -- screening -- in this way -- was back in the late 1990s when the RocketBook and Softbook made their
debut, but the term didn't do any better than the products did." do you agree with him that THIS might be the time SCREENING catches on, based on your 2008 academic paper? Yes or no or comments?

Well, consider also that "screening" already has several other usages: "'Screening' a film," "'Screening' a resume." Once again, if a term emerges that catches on, I'll be happy to use it, otherwise I'll stick with descriptive terms.

4. This fururist told me "This time around, screening is a clever and useful term capturing the fact that the experience reading on a screen is fundamentally different from reading on paper. Not a priori worse or better; just different."
Do you agree with him here, yes or no or comments?



I was thrilled that you alerted me to the work of Anne Mangen in Norway. Unfortunately the paper that you reference is still under online embargo, but I've asked my local library in Vancouver to obtain a copy. This led me also to numerous references to her work, and the case is compelling that reading onscreen IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from reading in print. It so happens that I've been exploring this subject from various angles for my site www.thefutureofpublishing.com, and so your lead has been a godsend. The topic has received far too little coverage given the amount of academic research on the subject. I do intend to reveal as much of this as I can on my site in the near future.

5. This futurist also told me ..."So definitley SCREENING is the right word for the moment in terms of drawing people's attention to the vast literary shift about to wash over us....Do you agree that we are now witnessing a vast literary shift about to wash over us? YES NO MAYBE? COMMENTS?

I'm still not convinced that onscreen reading is "washing over us." The stats suggest otherwise. Many are contradictory of course. Some suggest that devices like the Kindle are bringing in new readers (certainly Amazon wants us to believe that), but most of the credible data I encounter indicates that this is more interesting if compared to the introduction of home video games. If you played them before it was at a bar or an arcade; now you can play them at home. In this case the video game industry has exploded. I haven't found any credible data to suggest that reading is exploding because of eBooks.

6. Is there any research yet that speaks about the way that different parts of the brain light up when people read on paper compared to when they read on a screen? Has anyone studied it this way yet? Can it be studied this way? Do you think it is possible that different parts of the brain light up when we read on paper vs reading on screens? Might PHD people do research on this in the future.? how could one conduct such research? with MRI machines? brain scans?

I'm not qualified to answer that as a professional, but I think that the very fine references on your site point to some of the answers.

7. Does reading on screens hamper or hinder our critical analysis skills of what we are reading?

I'm a great fan and follower of Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman at useit.com. They are usability experts with impeccable credentials. Based on their work and that of Anne Mangen I have to believe the answer is an unequivocal "YES"! I often quote Nielsen's remark from the 1990's. The question was: "How do people read on the Web?" The answer. "They don't." [check reference]. Nielsen points out how decidedly different people encounter text on a website versus printed material, and everyone should read this article to understand the essential difference.

8. If in the future most reading is done on screens, from computers to iPhones to Kindles to even textbooks on screens, could this hurt the critical thinking skills of young people to think, analyze and asess information?

Indeed. Of course there are many vocal proponents on each side of the argument. Here's an interesting site I found today prompted by your emails: http://www.zoneinproducts.com/

9. Do you think people will be reading on paper surfaces anymore in the year 2050? in the year 2099?

This is a fun topic to debate. On the one hand, who cares? They'll get what they want from where they want it, and no one knows today how many will want paper, screens, holography, or needles in the arm. But I do believe that the "book arts" will survive for a great long time, as they have much value to offer. I won't be here in 2050 or in 2099, but I hope I'm clutching a treasured text as I take my last breath.

10. Are you willing or ready to say goodbye to MR PAPER, and greet the SCREEN AGE with a complete open-minded welcome?

As with all technology, my philosophy is to observe, research and quantify. No one has appointed me as the arbiter of what technologies should be embraced in the future. My task on www.thefutureofpublishing.com is to observe and record all of the changes and influences that affect adoption of new technology, and offer reasonable prognoses as to where these might lead.

Thank you for your well-informed and provocative questions!


Best,
Thad

--
Thad McIlroy
The Future of Publishing, Inc.
www.TheFutureofPublishing.com

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Taiwan, E-Ink, PVI, Prime View International, Kindle, Screening, Reading, E-Readers,

E-Ink maker PVI of Hsinchu poised to become tech giant

SCREEN READING: A Norwegian reading specialist is studying
the differences betweem reading on paper and reading on computer screens


by Dan Bloom
Contributing Reporter



Forget pens and pencils, and forget reading books printed on paper.
The name of the game in the global e-reader industry is E-Ink, and the
magical "ink" comes
from inside a corporation in the Hsinchu Science Park. This is a story
about what reading might be like in the future, say in 2050, when even
the Taipei Times might come to readers via sleek electronic readers
using a complex technology managed by a Taiwan outfit.

Anne Mangen is a reading specialist at Stavanger University in Norway, and an
academic paper she published last year -- on the
differences between reading on paper and reading on screens -- has
catapulted her to the forefront of an ongoing debate on these issues.

Taiwan is part of this debate because the E-Ink technology used in the
Amazon Kindle e-reader is owned by Prime View International (PVI), the
world's highest-volume supplier of ePaper display modules. Last June,
PVI's president Scott Lui announced that the Hsinchu firm acquired E Ink Corporation, the leader in electronic paper display
materials.
While most Kindle owners in the U.S. probably don't know what PVI is,
the makers of Kindle and the Sony Reader certainly do. And PVI is poised now to
become a world leader in the evolving technology field.

Nicholson Baker, writing about the Kindle in a recent issue of the New
Yorker
magazine, explained how the E-Ink in the Amazon Kindle works.
"Instead of ink on paper, there’s something called Vizplex. Vizplex is
the trade name of the layered substance that makes up the Kindle’s
display — i.e., the six-inch-diagonal rectangle that you read from.
It’s a marvel of bi-stable microspheres, and it took lots of work and
more than a US$150 million dollars to develop, but it’s really still
in the prototype phase."

Vizplex, in slurry form, is made in Cambridge, Massachusetts, by a
company called E Ink. E Ink layers it onto a film, or “frontplane
laminate,” at a plant in western Massachusetts, and then sends the
laminate to Taiwan, where its parent company, PVI, (itself a
subsidiary of a large paper company), marries it to an electronic
grid, or backplane. The backplane tells the frontplane what to do,"
Baker added.

As Kindles become common place, along with the SONY E-Reader, and even
as schools start using digital textbooks instead hardback and
paperback books in classrooms, the way we read is being studied by
researchers on several continents. Mangen, who received her PhD in the
U.S. and is an internationally-recognized reading specialist, is
watching these developments with fascination.

In a recent interview with the Taipei Times, conducted by phone and
email,
Mangen talked about the differences she has found in how people
read on screens and how they read on paper surfaces.When asked if
there was that much of a difference, Mangen said: "Yes, the experience
of reading on a screen is different from reading on paper, although in
what ways and to what extent must be specified in each
instance, situation and purpose of reading. However, whether reading
on a screen is better or
worse than reading on paper depends on a range of variables -- the
reader’s prior experience with both formats, the purpose and situation
of the reading act, the type and genre of text, the disposition of the
reader, and other variables."

[Mangen did her Ph.D. in Norway at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU, www.ntnu.no), and was a visiting scholar during the
last year of her Ph.D. at San Jose State Univeristy (and, during the first year,
at Xerox PARC).
Her most recent academic paper is a book chapter to be published in November 2009, in
Advances in Haptics (an open-access publication, see
www.intechweb.org). Together with a French neuroscientist, I have
written on the changing haptics of writing (from handwriting to
typewriting; the ways we use our hands differently when typewriting
compared to when handwriting, and what implications this might have
for writing acquisition). Her dissertation was published this year by the German publisher
VDM Verlag:
http://www.borders.co.uk/book/the-impact-of-digital-technology-on-immersive-fiction-reading/1563039/]


When asked if she agreed with American futurist Paul Saffo's assertion
that a vast
literary shift is washing over the Western world now, Mangen
said: "Yes, I would say that the current shift from paper to
screen represents a vast literary shift, the implications of which --
short-term and, in particular, long-term -- we are not yet aware of."

When asked if reading on screens might
hamper or hinder the critical analysis skills readers need to use when
understand text, Mangen said: "This question is a too general – but
very important also–and it
cannot be dealt with in such a general, either/or manner. The precise
reading situation, context, purpose, kind of
text, reader dispositions, device characteristics, and other
vairables, would have to be specified in order to yield any
constructive and interesting answers to your question. So the
question is too general, but it's an important one."

When asked if most reading in the future is done on screens, from
computers to iPhones to Kindles
to even textbooks on screens, could such a development hurt the
critical thinking
skills of young people to think, analyze and assess information, Mangen said:
"It’s tempting to answer with the cliché, and say
that only time will tell, but I do think it is appropriate and
important to raise these critical questions, over and over -- even at
the risk of being marginalized as a Luddite. Maryanne Wolfe at
Tufts University in Boston raises this issue, too, from a
cognitive/neuroscientific point of view, in her excellent book "Proust
and the Squid", which I highly recommend. It's been translated already
into Chinese for the Taiwan market and is avaible there now."

At the end of our interview, this reporter asked Mangen if she was
willing or ready to say goodbye
to Mr. Paper and greet the Screen Age with a completely open-minded
welcome.

"No," she said, adding:" At least not when it comes to the educational
aspects of reading."

Bibliofetishism

Look it up.

Bibliomysticism

Look it up.

The Bindle makes Wikipedia and history at same time!

What's a Bindle, you ask? According to Wikipedia:

In American popular book culture, a Bindle is a newly-minted word for a book printed in a paper format and bound with a front cover and back cover. The trademarked word and logo is a humorous take-off on the newly-minted Amazon screening device called a Kindle.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The International Herald Tribune and other papers worldwide get faked out by a letter writer with a tragic past



hat tip to Eric Shackle in Australia

UPDATE: SAD SAD UPDATE:

The man in question here, the multiple letter writer, it turns out, after a deep gumshoe work by a savvy private eye, that the letter writer in question here is apparently not mentally stable and is not living in the USA now. If any of the newspapers just tracked the IP on his emails in which he sends in his letters, they could easily tell his letters by email are ioriginating from outside the USA.
He apparently left the USA in October of 2007, according to sources. He was allegedly committed to a mental institution in his native country outside the USA and not by his choice. He is allegedly not mentally stable. That explains the long list of newspapers that published his letters to the editor. He has some strong need to write these letters and to pretend he was living in the city where the newspaper was published.

CASE CLOSED:

Once again, hat tip to Eric Shackle, journalist par excellence, in Australia, who tracked this story down to its very demouement.

GAME OVER

"Screening" the Sunday New York Times at your kitchen table computer will be the thing of the future, maybe....when print newspapers are long gone?


Andre Behrens at the New York Times like to tell a story he often hears from Times' readers: Reading the Sunday Times, spreading out the paper on a table while eating brunch is a weekend ritual in many homes and apartments. For many of the Times' readers, this ritual is fundamental to their enjoyment of the weekend, and its absence would be jolting, according to Behrens.

With this in mind, the Times has created what they call an "article skimmer". Think of it as an attempt to provide the Sunday Times experience anytime on a screen, for those who prefer "screening" over reading on a paper surface. Of course, there are parts the Times admits it cannot replicate: the satisfying crinkle of the material paper itself; the circular stain of one's coffee cup on the paper; and oh yes, the smell of newsprint.

With this new skimmer for "screeners" who like to screen rather then read, the Times is trying to spread as many stories as it can fit into the space of screener's screens. It is easier and more relaxing to scan a surface of information than flip through a stack, so information is laid out in a rigid two-dimensional grid. The sections do not flip into place; instead, they slide up and down. If you want to imagine the whole of the content as a giant uncut scroll of paper, don’t let us stop you.

Welcome to the future? Your guess is as good as mine.

Will anyone read beyond the jump (and pay for the pleasure?)

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/


The New York Times Article Skimmer is a pretty cool tool which could save loads of time for those who use the website everyday to browse through various news articles under different categories. Its aim is to give you quick access to the headlines thereby saving you the hassle of clicking one link after another. Just pick a category from the sidebar and see the news aggregated on one single page.

It also gives you the option to choose the way you’d like the news to be arranged on the page. It calls them Schemes and you can choose from Priority, Stacked, Giant, Lines, Swiss and many more in the Settings.

The New York Times Doesn't Think We Need a New Word for Reading on Screens In Order to Differentiate It From Reading On Paper, But ....

....BUT.....there is a spirited discussion about all this now online in hundreds of blogs and websites, and a recent interview with Dr Anne Mangen in Norway sheds more light on the issues invovled.

AN INTERVIEW WITH DR ANNE MANGEN IN NORWAY ON READING ON PAPER AND
READING ON SCREENS


http://zippy1300.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-dr-anne-mangen-in-norway.html

conducted by reporter/blogger Danny Bloom in Taiwan (August 15, 2009)

Anne Mangen is a reading specialst in Norway,
and a paper she published in late 2008 in the UK on the differences
betweem reading on paper and reading on screens has catapulted her to
the forefront of the debate on this controverisal topic. Even the New York Times has taken notice.

In a recent email interview, I asked Dr Mangen to go over some of the
issues involved here. As some readers might know, I have been
advocating that society adopt a new word for reading on screens, since
I feel screen reading is so different from reading on paper, and I
feel that with a new word we can study the differences better -- and
point out the differences better, too -- and I have gently, quietly
suggested the word "screening" to mean "reading text on a screen". Of
course, not everyone agrees with me; and even Dr Mangen does not agree
with me, even though it was her 2008 academic paper that got me
started on this quixotic quest. But that's okay. I respect Dr Mangen
highly, and I still consider her my mentor on all this.

When I asked her that since reading on paper is very different from
reading on screens, does she think that at some point we might need a
new word in English for "reading on screens", she replied: "Not
really, because I doubt that one single word is able to denote the
complexity of the process in any accurate and useful way."

MORE.....

http://zippy1300.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-dr-anne-mangen-in-norway.html

AN INTERVIEW WITH DR ANNE MANGEN IN NORWAY ON READING ON PAPER AND READING ON SCREENS


AN INTERVIEW WITH DR ANNE MANGEN IN NORWAY ON READING ON PAPER AND
READING ON SCREENS


conducted by Danny Bloom in Taiwan (August 15, 2009)

Anne Mangen is a reading specialst at the National Centre for Reading Research and Education at Stavanger University in Norway, and a paper she published in late 2008 in the UK on the differences betweem reading on paper and reading on screens has catapulted her to the forefront of the debate on this very controverisal topic.

In a recent email interview, I asked Dr Mangen to go over some of the
issues involved here. As some readers might know, I have been advocating that society adopt a new word for reading on screens, since I feel screen reading is so different from reading on paper, and I feel that with a new word we can study the differences better -- and point out the differences better, too -- and I have gently, quietly suggested the word "screening" to mean "reading text on a screen". Of
course, not everyone agrees with me; and even Dr Mangen does not agree with me, even though it was her 2008 academic paper that got me started on this quixotic quest. But that's okay. I respect Dr Mangen highly, and I still consider her my mentor on all this.

When I asked her that since reading on paper is very different from reading on screens, does she think that at some point we might need a new word in English for "reading on screens", she replied: "Not really, because I doubt that one single word is able to denote the complexity of the process in any accurate and useful way."

Dr Mangen went on: "The term “reading” is already a general term
covering a range of very different processes on different cognitive
and perceptual levels, undertaken in a range of different situations,
with a vast number of different textual material. As well as
non-textual material, when one talks about “reading faces”, or
“reading the next move in a game of chess. When talking about
reading, there always follows a requirement to supply more precise and
narrower concepts to clarify what aspects of the reading process and
experience we are currently talking about, and this requirement is no
different whether we read on paper or on screen (or on any other
device). "

She added: "I think the main dichotomy might remain that between
“screen reading” and “print reading”, and then one will have to employ
add-on and ad hoc clarifications and specifications of these general
concepts, such as for instance scrolling and hypertextual reading as
instances of screen reading, and turning the page when print reading."


"Moreover, terms like scan, skim, browse, and close-read apply equally
as well to screen reading as to print reading. What is interesting is
what terms and processes such as these actually entail in the two
different reading conditions (i.e., reading on screen and print). And
this is what has to be specified additionally, I think, instead of
replacing the generic term “reading” with “screening”as you suggest,
Danny, -- which will be too un-nuanced and indistinct and hence, not
very useful -- at least not scientifically," she said.

"In general, I should add that I am critical to unnecessary
neologizing, as I think that too much research (particularly in the
arts and humanities) is about creating new words and concepts where
they are not needed, hence taking the focus away from discussing
substance and content of theoretical arguments and developments to
rather focusing on rhetoric and language," she added.

When I mentioned to Dr Mangen that my concept behind using the word
screening to try to capture the fact that the experience of reading on
a screen is fundamentally different from reading on paper -- and not a
priori worse or better; just different, she agreed, saying: "Yes, the
experience of reading on a screen is different from reading on paper;
although in what ways and to what extent must be specified in each
instance, situation and purpose of reading."

But she added: "However, whether reading on a screen is better or
worse than reading on paper depends on a range of variables -- the
reader’s prior experience with both formats, the purpose and situation
of the reading act, the type and genre of text, the disposition of the
reader, and other variables."


When I told her that I wanted to introduce the word screening as a new
word for reading on screens in order to draw attention to the vast
literary shift that is washing over us right now, as we speak, and if
she agreed that we are now witnessing a vast literary shift, Dr Mangen
replied: " Yes, I would say that the current shift from paper to
screen represents a vast literary shift, the implications of which --
short-term and, in particular, long-term -- we are not yet aware of."

I asked Dr Mangen if she feels, as I do, that reading on screens might
hamper or hinder the critical analysis skills of what pepople are
readingsne replied:
"This question is a too general – but very important also–and it
cannot be dealt with in such a general, either/or manner, as you
phrase it. The precise reading situation, context, purpose, kind of
text, reader dispositions, device characteristics, and other
vairables, would have to be specified in order to yield any
constructive and interesting answers to your question. So your
question is too general, but it's an important one."

I asked Dr Mange a specific question, asking her: "If in the future
most reading is done on screens, from computers to iPhones to Kindles
to even textbooks on screens, could this hurt the critical thinking
skills of young people to think, analyze and assess information?"

Dr Mangen replied: "It’s tempting to answer with the cliché, and say
that only time will tell, but I do think it is appropriate and
important to raise these critical questions, over and over -- even at
the risk of being marginalized as a Luddite, Danny. Maryanne Wolfe at
Tufts University in Boston raises this issue, too, from a
cognitive/neuroscientific point of view, in her excellent book "Proust
and the Squid", which I highly recommend to you."

Finally, I asked Dr Mange if she was willing or ready to say goodbye
to Mr. Paper and greet the Screen Age with a completely open-minded
welcome, she said: "No, at least not when it comes to the educational
aspects of reading."

So it goes. I was in Taiwan tapping on my computer keyboard in a
computer lab at a local university, since I don't even own a computer
and never have, and she was on the other side of the world in Norway,
on summer vacation, and I felt it was a good interview, a very good
interview indeed. I learned a lot.

INFO:
Anne Mangen
PhD., associate professor
National Centre for Reading Research and Education
University of Stavanger
NORWAY

The David Pogue Challenge at the New York Times: Find a new word for writing on computers since we do not really write on computers, do we?


As the world changes around us, and the technology introduces new gadgets for the consumer market almost every month, what's a Luddite to do? Of course, even though the dial phone is a thing of the past, we still say we are dialing a number when we dial a number on our cellphone. And even though writing used to mean holding an ink quill pen or a pencil or a ballpoint pen or a fountain pen and actually putting INK to paper (or lead, as in the case of the pencil), now we still call the kind of composing we do on computer screens as writing.

But David Pogue at the New York Times has challenged me to try to find a new word for writing on computer screens, since he says if reading on screens is not reading as reading used to be, then writing on computer screens is also not really writing anymore. So he challenged me to find a new word for what we do on screens when we write. Er, compose. Er, key in. Er, type. Er, tap.

What ARE we doing when we compose on our computers? Are we typing, are we writing, are we composing, are we tapping, what? The Pogueman wants to know, and who knows, it may end up in one of his future tech columns at the Times, that dinosaur of a print publication!

What would YOU call writing nowadays? Still writing? Or got a better word? Dish!

DAVID "WROTE" TO ME ON HIS COMPUTER: "Danny, if you're a champion of a new word for READING ON A SCREEN when it's
done on the computer, why aren't you also fighting for a new word for
WRITING on the computer? It's an exact analog, isn't it?"


Editor's note: IS IT AN EXACT ANALOG? LET'S FIND OUT!

Syndicated cartoon gets its Yiddish inflections wrong -- and guilty cartoonist says: "OOPS!"


Syndicated cartoon gets its Yiddish inflections wrong -- and guilty
cartoonist says : "OOPS!"


by Dan E. Bloom

Bill Griffith is one of America's most famous newspaper cartoonists,
and his comic strip called ZIPPY is syndicated in newspapers around
the country, and overseas as well. You can view his website at
http://zippythepinhead.com

Griffith's cartoons have been called surreal, intellectual, zany,
goofy, underground, catchy, you name it. He is a brilliant satirizer
of American culture, and he takes aim at almost everyone, VIP
personages to celebrities to, well, to everyone. Griffith has an eye
for what's happening in American culture, and he's been doing this for
years. His fan base in legion.

Now to the Yididsh story.

The August 15 edition of ZIPPY, published already in newspapers around
the nation, was a pointed jab at how technology is often taking over
our lives, and the very first panel of the strip began with one of the
characters reading a book and saying to his pal, who was watchiing TV:
"Kindle, schwindle....I still like a real page-turner with pages you can
turn!"


To which his pal replies: "Twitter, schwitter....I still like network
TV ....where commercials rule!"


Spot the mistake? See the gaffe? Read the dialog phrases above again.

Of course, the cartoonist meant to write "Kindle, schmindle" and
Twitter, schmitter" ... but he absentmindedly mixed up the schm sound
with the schw sound, and of course, in Yiddish, the schm sound rules!
As in "Cancer, schmancer, as long as you're healthy!" and other
Yiddish sayings. Actually, the "schw" sound does not mean anything in
Yiddish-inflected English or even in Yiddish. It's the "schm" sound
that packs the comic punch.

See the cartoon here.

http://zippy1300.blogspot.com/2009/08/kindle-schmindle-twitter-schmitter.html

When the cartoonist was contacted at his home office in Connecticut,
the Long Island native -- who was actually born in Levittown; yes,
that famous Levittown -- and who actually knows very well how
Yiddish-English should be inflected for best comic results, replied:
"Oops!"

But it's too late to change the comic strip. It's already in print in
over 500 newspapers worldwide and online as well. The good news? It's
now a collector's item!