I just came across this article and thought it was something others here would enjoy.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadget...x.html?hpt=Sbin

I know that there is a lot that it doesn't say, but still an interesting tidbit. Both because of CGL's use of PDFs, but also for possible in-game ramifications.

Several years ago (well before iPad/Kindle or even tablet PCs) Xerox conducted research showing that comprehending technical comprehension takes 30% longer on a PC than a printed page.

At the time I dismissed it as self serving coming from a company that sells paper and digital presses, but Nielsen's study seems to back them up.

There's also the issue of CVS.

I wrote a paper recently arguing that the most productive way to store/retrieve and consume information is a combination of ECM (or desktop search in the case of an individual) and high speed printers. As is often the case, this is also the most expensive method.

The survey was only 24 people...

Having owned a Kindle since Christmas, and mainly a reader of magazines (e.g. Asimov's, Analog, New Yorker) on it, I can't notice any reduced speed. If anything, I can get through an article quicker because I don't have ads to skip over or parts of the article on different pages.

If I am just reading end-to-end and especially recreational fiction reading, I really don't experience a difference. Now, where I think e-readers fall flat is searching, flipping pages and general browsing. Its a lot harder to navigate when compared to a hardcopy.

Which is a lot harder to navigate when compared to a well-indexed PDF.

PDFs and print products are navigated very _differently_. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

i would love to get hold of a A4 screen size device to test out reading PDFs on.

I've hit 100+ ebooks. The last paper book I bought, aside from RPG rule books, is currently the penultimate book in a long series. I have the latest one as an ebook, but I can't start it because I haven't finished the previous paper book yet. After a year I'm still struggling with the need to lug that huge pile of paper around to read it. And worst of all, it's just one book, and only that one book, not any or all books that I own that I might want to read. Just that one book. No music or internet browsing or email or phone or text messaging options either on that paper book. Paper format is so limited.

That one last paper book is a curse.

You see, Dire Radiant... I would call that Liberating, you have a chance to unplug and get away from all of that electronic noise for a change... that is a rarity in these days... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

But I will say that I am looking forward to the Skiff (if it is as good as it looks to be)... I do not have an electronic reader as of yet, and honestly, I am holding out, but who knows, maybe I will enter into the realms of the Electronic at some point.

Keep the Fath

Power button. Easy. Or silent mode. I control my own life. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Heheheh... yeah, well maybe I am just a bit biased... I still do not have a Cell phone, let alone a Smart Phone, E-Reader, or MP3 (do those even exist anymore) player... I have enough of the Electronic world without having all of that, and it is always good to get away from it all with a Good Paperback (or Hardback, I am not that biased) Book... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Keep the Faith

So, navigating is a biggie, no doubt. As are the distractions if you have other functionality tied to your reader. I like the Kindle a lot and part of me wishes that it didn't have a web browser. Granted, I don't use it all that much, but sometimes, it does distract me from what I am reading...

I also think that how you read makes a big difference. Personally, for the types of short fiction and magazines I read, I am very linear. I read cover to cover, usually in order is presented and rarely ever flip back. I don't highlight stuff or really ever need to reference something once its read. And because of that, I'll pay $9.99 for an e-book that I can start reading in 60 seconds instead of finding it used for $5.00 (with shipping) and start reading it in a few days.

Granted, not all books I would do that with. I've got a copy of my SR4A PDF on my Kindle, and even though I can zoom in and access all the pages, search for keywords and the like, its just too cumbersome for me to not have a hardcopy at my gaming table.

Yeah, I've never got into SmartPhones and I don't listen to music so really have no need for a music player of any sort. I love my e-reader though, as it opens up my 45 minute lunch hour to reading. I'm the type that ends up reading several books at one time, depending on my mood and location. So, having 40+ books all the time, with about 5 that I am actively reading from on any given day, is perfect for me.

Ironically, my writing habits have me tied to drafting on a manual typewriter for exactly the opposite reasons I love my e-reader (focus on one thing, being unplugged and semi-luddite tendencies)!

I believe that is the biggest thing that would move paper to a non-format in the future. Even if it takes someone an extra hour to read a book on electronic format, the fact that they can have access to millions of books in seconds for less weight than a single paper book will put have most people that read books reading from electronic formats.

And the complaints could all easily be addressed. The weight complaint for example wouldn't have likely come up if they'd been reading a chapter from 'war and peace' or something that wasn't a short story. The contrast also seems like something that could be fixed by adjusting the settings. Is that something you can't do with the whatever, or were they just not given a chance to change those settings? As for the 'feels like work', well, that is going to vary alot based on what kind of people you have doing the testing. Teens and young adults for instance are unlikely to associate computers with work, and are perhaps more likely to associate a physical book with work due to being required to read them for classes at around that age.

E-books are also alot cheaper than paper books. You don't have to buy the paper, you don't have to buy the ink and cover. Publishers don't have to worry about how many copies they want to print and ship and don't have to worry about distribution and so on.

I'm not sure, but I'd imagine that the ecological footprint of a book is larger than an e-book as well. You have to compare the energy to run the device to the resources and energy used to make paper (which requires the shipping of logs which are cut from trees), ink, and the book itself and then ship it all over the country.

Oh, and as for the study itself, the person admits it doesn't actually prove anything because the variability was too high. With 24 people being split into 4 groups, a single speed reader (Well, not speed reader, but simply a fast reader) in the 'book' category or a slow reader in the electronic categories, or someone who had read the story before who was able skim the stuff could drastically effect the results. I'm surprised there weren't two book categories though, as a way to ensure that the results were at least somewhat consistent (does one book category get the same speed as another?). And with something that is only 17.5 minutes long, you're talking about less than a minute as far as the differences. Maybe someone yawned a couple times?

Still, would be interesting to see more studies of this kind done. Looking at age as a variable might be important as well. Younger people tend to be more used to reading on an electronic format due to text messages, e-mails, IMs, websites, etc.

Personally I love electronic format, especially if it is something I am likely to go through alot (like a rule book) because of the ease of searching a .pdf for some specific word or term.

Distribution is still a factor; it's easier to "get distribution" but those distributors (DriveThruRPG, Amazon, Apple ...) always take a cut, of course.

Yeah, but so does a book store, so the cut that is taken isn't really an issue for either side, though the online version might either take a smaller cut or be making a larger profit thanks to not having to worry about how many copies of X they need to buy, or store things, and likely have fewer employee and overhead expenses. But like I said, it isn't really an issue because both physical and e- books have the 'distributor gets a cut' problem.

If you are looking for a specific book, ebooks have the advantage of international distribution, lower up-front cost. However, if you're looking just for 'a book on quantum mechanics', I daresay normal books win. You can't buy a used ebook, so your physical book should be cheaper. Unless it's a textbook, it'll be comparable in size and weight of your kindle. It costs a lot less, so if you lose it/crush it/drop it in the toilet/whatever, it's not a huge hassle. And at this point, the physical book is going to have a lower environmental impact (physical books have a higher up-front cost for production and distribution, although the cost is almost negligible, but no cost for reading or operating there-after. Ebooks have a MUCH higher environmental cost in the form of your reader, but the ebook themselves are negligible in cost in publishing and distributing. However, they have an ongoing cost in power consumption during actual use.)

I'll buy an ebook if I'm looking for a specific, new book, not available at the library, or if it's a large book or requires heavy cross-referencing. If I'm looking for something for me to read on the train, it's paper all the way. It's not even a question for me. The only reason I'd say otherwise is because my bookshelves are jam-packed, but that's what a library is for.

Your original quote was "Publishers [...] don't have to worry about distribution and so on." -- which is untrue.

See this post, for example, about some of the issues surrounding small press on the Kindle store: http://adamjury.com/2010/early-experiences...-amazon-kindle/

I get eye strain when I read off electronic devices, I don't read as fast, and I don't browse as fast- I also don't find carrying books around to be a chore, or them to be all that weighty. Of course I find it somewhat incomprehensible that someone has taken a year to read one book, but that's probably because I read at a rate of about 100pg -> 1 hour.

Really, I've said it before- different tools for different people. Everyone has their preference, and the way their brain works with their surroundings most easily, heck my sis takes all her novels on audio. *shrug*

I've got an Ipad and over 600 RPGs on it. I rather love mine. But I have them in hard copy too. (( except for Corp guide and the almanaic)) As I collect them.

As someone said, you read ebooks and real books 'differently'. I don't notice a great reduced speed. Unless it's due to me flipping over to my Itunes to change songs in my book as I read

You may find this reduces the amount of tapping you need to do: in your Preferences, General, Home, you can set "Double Click the Home Button" to iPod. So from GoodReader, double-click Home to get to Music, change your song, then single-click Home and tap back to GoodReader. I've found this is better than double-clicking Home bringing up the small push-like music interface.

Edit: And for those using GoodReader, the USBGoodReader app for OS X is totally awesome for moving files to/from it. *Much* better, IMO, than dicking around with iTunes and/or the Bonjour sharing. Haven't used the Windows version, though.

OS X: http://www.goodiware.com/usb/GoodReaderUSBMac_202.zip

Windows: http://www.goodiware.com/usb/GoodReaderUSBWin_200.zip

I have my good reader set up to take stuff from google Documents. I just upload stuff there. Grab it on the Ipad and then delete it from Google Documents.

As to get to music. I just click the home once. Tap Ipod. do my music, tap home once, tap good reader (( Mine's on my bottom bar, so it's on every page)) and it reopens to the file I was in, where I was.

It doesn't really take that long. It's 'finding a good song in my library that slows me down. lol

Sorry, should have expanded that out to 'as much', but it was a continuation of my sentence in which I said that they didn't have to worry about things like how many books to produce, to ship to every place, etc. I suppose that is somewhat different from distribution though.



'at this point'? Not sure what you mean by 'at this point' exactly. You are right though, the cost/impact of the Kindle/ipad/whatever being made does need to be taken into account as well, which is something that I didn't consider. The question is: how long does it take the impact the energy used to run a kindle to equal out the amount of impact of producing a book on paper. As long as the kindle isn't used for 'book' purposes per book longer than that, there is net benefit, and that net benefit can go towards offsetting the cost of the kindle itself.

Anyone have any kind of idea how big the environmental impact of a book is and how big the production of energy is on a kilowatt basis?

I don't know what the cost is to produce a kindle, but from the point of purchase, forward, I charge it 2-3 hours every 3-4 weeks. So, I'm probably spending a dollar or two per month in electricity to read a handful of books and magazines. That will add up over time. Now, if I could find a hand-crank charger or solar panel, I could reduce that to zero residual cost.

On my Mac, I use the excellent Skim PDF reader. It has several very useful annotation and search functions, as well as a 'snapshot' mode.