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 the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS