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.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS