As digital advances continue to transform the global media world day by day, a Taiwanese company in Hsinchu, E Ink Holdings (formerly Prime View International), has taken on an important role with its development of E Ink, which is able to render text on e-reader screens. The original goal of creating e-books, of course, was to make the experience of reading on electronic devices as similar as possible to that of printed books. In many respects, that goal has already been realized.
With about 90 percent of all e-readers using E Ink, the digital reading revolution is going to have a major impact on business and education worldwide and it is incumbent upon us all to ponder just where we are headed as screens replace paper.
An important question that academics and researchers in Taiwan and overseas need to answer, as the digital revolution gathers speed, is this: Do we read differently from a computer screen to how we read the printed page? And if so, how differently, and in what ways?
With two new English-language books about reading and the Internet making waves worldwide this summer — William Powers’ Hamlet’s BlackBerry and Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows — everyone is talking about the pros and cons of reading printed materials versus reading from a screen.
An education specialist in Norway, Anne Mangen, listed in a 2008 academic paper a few reasons why these two approaches to reading are different. She said that:
• Reading on a screen is not as rewarding — or effective — as reading printed words on paper;
• The process of reading on a screen involves so much physical manipulation of the computer that it interferes with our ability to focus on and appreciate what we are reading;
• Online text moves up and down the screen and lacks a physical dimension, robbing us of a sense of completeness;
• The visual happenings on a computer screen and our physical interaction with the device and its setup can be distracting.
All of these things tax human cognition and concentration in a way that a book, newspaper or magazine does not;
The experience of reading a book, newspaper or magazine is both a story experience and a tactile one.
We still do not know just how different reading printed works is from reading on a screen, but the public discussions are getting interesting — and heated.
Some pundits believe that future MRI scans of the brain when reading will help us to understand the issues better. This work is currently being done in a few research labs around the world.
However, a doctor in Boston told me that he feels “scanning” the brain while reading printed materials or a screen, either through MRI or PET scans, still won’t determine which is the better or healthier experience.
“We don’t know enough about the brain to tell which would be better, even if different areas of the brain are active,” he said.
When I asked a noted writer on technology in New York about this, he replied: “A good test would be not telling the subjects the real purpose of the experiment, letting some read and comment on a text displayed in a printed book or on a computer screen or e-reader (e-ink or TFT), and then let raters, also unaware of the real purpose, look for differences in what people write after different modes.”
Let the research in Taiwan and overseas begin. The results could better spell out the future of screen-reading devices and what roles they will play in Taiwanese children’s lives.
Dan Bloom is a US writer based in Taiwan.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new