E-readers and other digital reading devices have proliferated in the past several years, and are beginning to pose a threat to the traditional print book. However, e-readers strain the reader’s eyes. Stanley Morison, an English typographer, stated that typography’s goal is to maximize the reader’s comprehension of a text; thus, legibility is highly pertinent (Biggs 10, 15). Colour schemes also affect a text’s readability. The highest contrast levels, light text on dark background or dark text on light background, are the most legible (Ellison 130). The former is less tiring on the eyes, while pure light from monitor, the latter, strains the eyes (130). Bright LCD screens like that of the Apple iPad were found to also strain the eyes, while those without a backlight, like the Amazon Kindle, were found to be gentler (Voorhees 37; Baker 17). Further studies have found that other e-readers also strain the eyes, and many readers still prefer paper-based sources (Foasberg 116; Harrison 35).
Voorhees, in his Master’s Thesis, states that “dedicated reading devices” (3), such as the Kindle or the Barnes & Noble Nook, direct readers’ attention towards the text better than devices such as iPads, which can be highly distracting due to their multipurpose nature. However, dedicated reading devices can also be distracting: the Amazon Kindle DX and Kindle 3 flash black and white momentarily while turning the page, interrupting reader’s concentration (Voorhees 26-7; 39-40).
Voorhees’ subjects seemed to enjoy reading on devices that resemble the structure of traditional books. One subject, after reading a text on paper, said that it was “easy to[…]read[…]I could easily flip to any page I like” (36), which is a shortcoming of e-readers. The iPad was also well-received, as page turning is “faster than paper” (37). Its touch screen also enables the reader to highlight the text (31), which is especially beneficial to students who frequently highlight and annotate their textbooks.
Earlier e-readers did not meet students’ needs (Foasberg 113), however the iPad has partially solved this problem, as mentioned above. Though producers of e-readers have tried to satisfy legibility problems, other issues, such as the ability to make annotations, have not been met (Harrison 35). Some platforms have added a “stylus-based input” (39) feature, which allows the user to annotate the text; others have not.
Students in the Hernon study claimed they read print books “cover to cover” but lacked the patience “to read e-books page by page” (Hernon et al. 7), preferring to skim. When unable to find something in the text, another student “abandon[ed] that source and seeks another” (7). The participants “want[ed] content that is easy to download or manipulate” (8), but not to waste time with an e-text. Students in this study appeared to, in general, still prefer to work from a paper copy rather than digital (8).
In another study that recorded subjects’ responses to the Amazon Kindle, researchers found that participants’ desired features included the ability to take notes, export notes to other devices, and edit bookmarks (Clark et al. 126). Page turning was also an issue; scanning a book does not translate well digitally (Clark et al. 126). Another drawback to e-readers is their high price, deterring some subjects from purchasing them (Foasberg 116; Fischer and Lugg 119). However, another study cited that e-books for Amazon’s Kindle in particular were cheaper than print ones (Clark et. al. 127).
Books both authored and read on cell phones, called keitai shousetsu (cell phone novels), are incredibly popular in Japan (Baker 3). As much of the Japanese population spends “hours” reading news, manga comic books, and even novels off their cell phones (Fitzpatrick), e-publishing industries began to market for cell phones platforms along with e-readers mentioned earlier. As Japanese written characters can be read from top to bottom, this form of e-reading “suits narrow displays” (Fitzpatrick).
The e-publishing industry is still in its infancy in terms of its development. As these studies have proven, although it made limited financial success, more efforts must be made to meet readers’ demands.
Works Cited
Baker, Rebecca Dawn. Comparing the Readability of Text Displays on Paper, e-Book Readers, and Small Screen Devices. Diss. University of North Texas, 2010. Texas: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT): UMI 3417731. Print.
http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/746481524?accountid=14771
Biggs, John R.. The Use of Type. London: Blandford Press, 1954. Print.
Clark, Dennis T., Susan P. Goodwin, Todd Samuelson, Catherine Coker. “A Qualitative Assessment of the Kindle e-Book Reader: Results from Initial Focus Groups.” Performance Measurement and Metrics 9.2 (2009): 118-129. Print.
Ellison, Andy. The Complete Guide to Digital Type: Creative Use of Typography in the Digital Arts. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd., 2006. Print.
Fischer, Ruth and Rick Lugg. “E-Book Basics.” Collection Building. 20.3 (2001): 119-122. Print.
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/01604953/v20i0003/119_eb
Fitzpatrick, Michael. “E-books: The Big Read.” Factiva 13 May 2004. Web.
http://www.nma.co.uk/the-big-read/2044.article
Foasberg, Nancy M. “Adoption of E-Book Readers among College Students: A Survey.” Information technology and libraries 30.3 (2011): 108-21. FRANCIS. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/906566866?accountid=14771
Harrison, Beverley L.. “E-books and the Future of Reading.” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 20.3 (2000): 32-39. Web.
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/01604953/v20i0003/119_eb
Hernon, P., R. Hopper, M.R. Leach, L.L. Saunders, J. Zhang. “E-Book Use By Students: Undergraduates in Economics, Literature, and Nursing.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 33.1 (2007): 3-13. Print.
Voorhees, Garret. Congeniality of Reading on Digital Devices: Measurement and Analysis of Reader Experience. MA Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology, 2011. New York: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT). Print. UMI 1492599
http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/870806676?accountid=1477