It may be gimmicky to you, but I cannot read an entire book in a sitting or two (as I often do) on any kind of non e-ink monitor and that includes tablets. I can easily do this on a Kindle or other e-ink device. So, for me, e-ink is no gimmick, it is an essential requirement for prolonged reading.
Well, FWIW, I for one can read a whole books, actually lots of them from both iBooks and iOS's Kindle app (read on a tablet. Heck, even on an iPhone). And don't care particularly for e-ink (I also have a kindle I don't use much).
If you can find some specific scientific argument why e-ink is "an essential requirement" (besides personal choice) then it's just cargo cult.
I listed fairly accurately were e-ink is better, namely reading in sunlight. And battery life, which I forgot.
For reading inside, it's advantages of yore, like resolution have been matched by hi-dpi screens. The only other advantage is better default contrast, which is a configurable setting on a tablet.
> If you can find some specific scientific argument why e-ink is "an essential requirement" (besides personal choice) then it's just cargo cult.
That's not how science works, and your comments are abrasive and offensive for no good reason. Things exist before scientists can prove them, and that's why research is done.
Although a quick Google search led me to find a paper backing your argument, I find you way too quick to dismiss other readers as doing "cargo cult". Why not believe them when they say they feel less strain?
>That's not how science works, and your comments are abrasive and offensive for no good reason. Things exist before scientists can prove them, and that's why research is done.
Research WAS done though. And didn't find much in advantage.
>Why not believe them when they say they feel less strain?
Because that's not how science works either. Subjective feelings are a dime a dozen. Users of homeopathic "drugs" also "feel less strain" but they're just drinking water. People can be led to believe (and "feel") anything by marketing, religion, snake oil merchants, etc.
Off the top of my head there are 2 major differences between e-ink and non e-ink displays that could potentially explain differences in comfort level for prolonged use:
- Non e-ink displays have a refresh rate, therefore continuous "activity" on the screen. People can have different sensitivities to this.
- Non e-ink displays tend to have higher contrast and/or brightness. This would normally be considered an advantage, but again perhaps not for prolonged use.
I don't need scientific papers to tell me I find e-ink more comfortable or not, it becomes very quickly apparent when I try to read a book on a tablet. Obviously you have a different perception, that does not invalidate mine.
I am not sure if either of the two effects you listed are behind this. I think the most notable issues include:
1. Less brightness as measured in nits. Emmissive displays are often tuned to much higher brightness than normal objects around us including reflective displays like E-ink.
2. Reflective displays and paper often have significantly lower front-surface reflection than LCDs/OLED displays. Add touch-screen and it gets ruined beyond repairs.
The first one is easy to tune by reducing brightness levels. However (A) that makes the second one worse as the brightness of the displayed content reduces but the brightness of reflection does not, and (B) displays are often too bright even at their lowest brightness levels allowed. Put a white paper in the front of white background on the screen, and you'll see what I mean.
>I don't need scientific papers to tell me I find e-ink more comfortable or not, it becomes very quickly apparent when I try to read a book on a tablet.
Well, without science to back it up, it's mostly good ole superstition. Subjective feeling doesn't say much (that's why placebo work too). The same things ("I don't need science to back this up, I know I feel better with it") are also said for "magnetic bracelets", homeopathy, and tons of similar things.
Taking marketing claims for technical superiorit with regards to readability as gospel without any scientific evidence of their validity (and even evidence to them being nothing much) qualifies.
You would be right, but my visual cortex actually has an elisp hook that trims marketing text and imagery. So, in this case, my comment was borne out of purely personal, first-hand experience. Furthermore, my original comment's 'wish' was not an attempt to apply opinion-constraints upon others. My aim was to garner karma from individuals who might share the same sentiment as I.
>Furthermore, my original comment's 'wish' was not an attempt to apply opinion-constraints upon others.
You say it like it's a bad thing.
Isn't trying to get people to agree to some objective/scientific fact an attempt to "apply opinion-constraints"?
As long as there is no violence or legal restrictions involved (e.g you don't force anyone by anything else than your arguments) then I'm all for applying opinion constaints on that nature.
