Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kindle is OK

scripting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Kindle is OK

#51

Post by sprout »

Confusion wrote: post #44
sprout wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you reading black-on-white or white-on-black? Google recently updated the Android maps application so everything is white during the day, which really annoys me. black-on-white is kind of obnoxious and wastes battery unless you're in full sunlight. But of course it's shinier, and shiny always beats functional...

It's not just shinier: in general people find it somewhat easier to read, as these blog posts with references to research suggest[1][2]. I know the halation effect mentioned in the second post completely ruines white-on-black for me, in most incarnations. My Gnome terminal is white-on-black, but that only works with a sufficiently large monospace font and the fact that terminal data is, well, different from a novel o…

I'm looking at those posts, and only two of the linked studies actually analyze font in conjunction with color. And the link is dead, but one of the comments to Atwood's blog suggests that he didn't read the second study as closely has he should have, and it actually says that there are specific font/color scheme combinations that are readable, not that some color schemes are simply unreadable.

Furthermore, Both of those posts are from before the iPhone, so I'd bet they were done on a full-sized computer screen. If I turn my Motorola Droid up to full brightness at night and read Reddit, I might as well be staring at a flashlight. Even low brightness is too much, especially at that range.

With the reddit-is-fun app I vastly prefer white-on-black. Right now I'm typing this on a 25" monitor, with my face 4 feet from the screen, and it's black-on-white in a browser box. But that's desktop.

What we need is a broad-based study with various smartphones and smartphone fonts at multiple brightness levels. (both backlight and ambient) I doubt that black-on-white is a good idea on a 4" screen with low ambient light. (At least not when you're reliant on a backlight.) At best, I would bet different fonts work well with different color schemes, and black-on-white should be avoided on portable devices to save battery power.

Re: Kindle is OK

#52

Post by jasonlotito »

Encosia wrote: post #46

I often wonder how many people are actually spending much time reading outdoors in bright/direct sunlight, versus just regurgitating that well-known point in favor of eInk. I find my iPad quite a bit more readable than the Kindle or Sony reader indoors, which is where I do nearly all of my reading. It's nice not needing to find a light source too.

It doesn't have to be bright, directly sunlight to impact performance. I love the iPad, but I'm still considering the Kindle... if I weren't so addicted to audiobooks.

Re: Kindle is OK

#53

Post by barmstrong »

pilif wrote: post #16

Three reasons why I personally think the Kindle is superior to the iPad as a reading device: 1) It's lighter and smaller and thus easier on your hands to hold it. My hands begin to hurt after holding the iPad for more than two hours. Reading is something I can do for hours without interruption. 2) I thought that an advantage of the ipad would be that I can read with the lights already out. I was wrong - staring at th…

I would add one more: battery life.

If you keep the 3G off except while downloading books, you can easily get TWO OR THREE WEEKS of battery life out of the Kindle - even if you use it every night.

The iPad does a lot more, no doubt, but as a straight up reading device the Kindle still wins.

Re: Kindle is OK

#54

Post by 2mur »

Xurinos wrote: post #26

I guess I am in the minority. I found that the eInk displays of these readers made for a poorer reading experience than reading straight off my iPhone with the help of Stanza. (1) I can read with the lights off. (2) The default font is not as grating. (3) I can adjust the brightness. Without giving my preference, I had an older gentleman compare the experience of trying to read with both devices. He usually needs to…

Yes, but did the older gentleman get to adjust the Kindle's text size. That's a killer feature that has sold Kindles to 6 of my older relatives who have used mine for more than a minute or so. I read at the 2nd to smallest font (probably about 10pt) but you can adjust it up to what seems like 32 pts or more. Older readers really love that.

Re: Kindle is OK

#56

Post by cschneid »

My girlfriend has a kindle 2, and I have an iphone. I've found that the iphone has one killer feature that the kindle doesn't: It's in my pocket all the time.

For whatever reason, my reading happens in 15 minute spurts while waiting for someone or something. The kindle app for the iphone allows me to do that, along with all the book options that amazon provides (and synced up to my girlfriend's kindle too, so we share books).

Re: Kindle is OK

#57

Post by smackfu »

HSO wrote: post #27
jswinghammer wrote: post #2

I bought a Kindle recently even though I have an iPad. I enjoy the Kindle far more. I also don't mind taking it with me on the train because if something happens to it then I didn't just lose something super expensive-just fairly expensive. It's also nice that I don't get distracted playing "Plants vs. Zombies" or "We Rule" on it when I intend to be reading.

I find it fascinating that people these days are willing to pay (a premium) for less features or less choice. It's counterintuitive, but if you look at e.g. Leica's exploding sales, or Macs, or indeed bare-featured Kindles, there's a pattern. In a perfect world (or, at least, one with perfectly consistent people) less features could never be worth more. People would do what they want and whether the device offers mor…

Less features != different features. An LCD is not interchangeable with an ePaper display as a feature.

Re: Kindle is OK

#58

Post by w1ntermute »

jsulak wrote: post #45
JoelSutherland wrote: post #4

One of the coolest things I do with my kindle is send my instapaper articles to it. It costs $0.15 per send (not per article), but it is great to have a bunch of really good, long form articles available. As an example, I read this great article about Lincoln the other night: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2005/10/lincoln-ap... There is no way I would read that on a computer.

One way to avoid kindle fees is to use USB to sync. If you're on Mac, use Ephemera ( http://goephemera.com/ ), or if you're on Windows, use Wordcycler ( http://www.wordcycler.com/ ). (I'm the developer of Wordcycler.) Another great benefit of these programs is that you can sync individual articles, not just the pre-made bundles that Instapaper provides. You can plug in your device, have the program download the artic…

And for Linux, check out calibre: http://calibre-ebook.com/

Re: Kindle is OK

#59

Post by jk8 »

pilif wrote: post #16

Three reasons why I personally think the Kindle is superior to the iPad as a reading device: 1) It's lighter and smaller and thus easier on your hands to hold it. My hands begin to hurt after holding the iPad for more than two hours. Reading is something I can do for hours without interruption. 2) I thought that an advantage of the ipad would be that I can read with the lights already out. I was wrong - staring at th…

My only issue with reading on kindle like devices is the way it changes the page. I don't think I can stand that. I feel like that would bother my eyes. EDIT: That is the only thing stopping me from buying one.

Re: Kindle is OK

#60

Post by Confusion »

sprout wrote: post #51
Confusion wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just shinier: in general people find it somewhat easier to read, as these blog posts with references to research suggest[1][2]. I know the halation effect mentioned in the second post completely ruines white-on-black for me, in most incarnations. My Gnome terminal is white-on-black, but that only works with a sufficiently large monospace font and the fact that terminal data is, well, different from a novel o…

I'm looking at those posts, and only two of the linked studies actually analyze font in conjunction with color. And the link is dead, but one of the comments to Atwood's blog suggests that he didn't read the second study as closely has he should have, and it actually says that there are specific font/color scheme combinations that are readable, not that some color schemes are simply unreadable. Furthermore, Both of t…

You are probably right that desktop vs. smartphone matters. And perhaps the amount of people and the amount they benefit doesn't weigh against the additional battery usage. The best solution would be if you could simply switch between color schemes at will (and set a personal default).

This page [1] suggests that most studies are even from before 'the web' (but from when is the page?). It has the quote by Jakob Nielsen that formed my opinion back when, from his well known 'Designing web usability':

  Use colors with high contrast between the text and the background.
  Optimal legibility requires black text on white background (so-called
  positive text). White text on a black background (negative text) is almost as
  good. Although the contrast ratio is the same as for positive text, the
  inverted color scheme throws people off a little and slows their reading
  slightly. Legibility suffers much more for color schemes that make the text
  any lighter than pure black, especially if the background is made any
  darker than pure white (Nielsen 2000, p 125)
I don't own the book and can't check on his sources, but Nielsen generally bases such advise on research. Anyway, all I'm saying is that they may have simply thought to be improving their app, not necessarily to increase the shinyness.

[1] http://web.mst.edu/~rhall/web_design/color_readability.html

Post reply on HN