June 13, 2009
Readable Web has moved to it’s permanent location at:
Click HERE to bounce on over.
May 31, 2009
I’m confused. My Kindle is really an iRex 1000S. And when people ask if it’s an E-Book, I say “Yes”, but I really think “No”.
E-this. E-that. E-gads, what does it all mean?
Here’s my current dictionary for the world of digital books:
- An E-Book is not the hardware device with a screen that you hold in your hands. An E-Book is software. An E-Book is the digital file that holds the text and images that comprise the “book”. A PDF, for example. This distinction makes for clearer usage I think. So, in my head at least, that’s the way I’ve set it up.
In other heads, the terms “E-Book” and “E-Reader” are likely to get shuffled around and used interchangeably for some time.
- An E-Reader is a hardware device on which you read E-Books. The Kindle is an E-Reader.
But if the history of brand names is any guide – to add to the confusion – ”Kindle” might quickly go from referring to a specific product to categorical catch-all, meaning simply, “E-Reader”. No matter what the manufacturer.
“Is that a Kindle?” Yeah, it’s an iRex Kindle. But the screen’s a little smudged, got a Kleenex? Thanks.
- This term, I wish, would just go away. It does a lousy job of describing what it’s trying to describe. Where do you put a device that uses E-Ink to make sure it doesn’t leak accidentally and send you running to the dry-cleaners? Is my laptop display using Liquid Crystal Ink? And where can you buy E-Whiteout? Staples doesn’t have that, it seems.
Please move to the DO NOT USE column.
- “E-Paper” does, nicely, describe the appearance of the kind of screens to be found on the Kindle and similar devices. This one’s a keeper.
The evolution of language is a fascinating sport where everyone gets to play.
About a month ago, I was flying from Florida to New York. Before takeoff, the flight attendant stopped by my seat, and said, “I’m sorry, sir, but you’ll have to turn off your book.” And then she grinned, leaned down a bit, and added, “You know, I just love getting to say that!”
I knew exactly what she meant.
May 26, 2009
Holiday weekends always bring a surprise or two.
First, on Sunday, I get an email alert that a new E-Reader application for the iPhone, Eucalyptus, was all ready to go. 20,000 classic books.
Great, because the day after that, as planned, my wife and I went to the Apple store and came home with two spanking new 3G iPhones, two nifty cases, two new two-year contracts, and heaven only knows what other fine print and gotchas Apple and AT&T will use to keep us in line and online forever. With them.
And then today, right on cue, some of that fine print (font-size does matter, dammit) came back to bite us all:
Wired Magazine’s Gadget Lab reports, the Eucalyptus E-Reader app has been rejected by Apple because – get a load of this – users can use it to download the Kama Sutra.
Apple said to Eucalyptus :
We’ve reviewed Eucalyptus — classic books, to go. and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because it contains inappropriate sexual content and is in violation of Section 3.3.12 from the iPhone SDK Agreement which states:
“Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.”
However it ends, the significance of the story is this: Right now, today, Applezon – the market-dominating combination of Amazon and Apple – occupies a toll-booth position in the e-book market.
If Applezon decides we can’t read the Kama Sutra on the iPhone, that’s the way it’s going to be.
But more importantly, if Applezon tells an author or a publisher that there simply isn’t enough demand to warrant their app or their book for it to appear on the Kindle or the iPhone, well, that’s the way it’s going to be, too. However benign their intentions – and I like both companies, I really do – they are profit-seeking enterprises accountable to shareholders and they are going to act accordingly.
But anyway, didn’t we work out all this sex stuff back in the Sixties? Whoever rolls over on this – Apple or Eucalyptus – one thing’s for sure, Lenny Bruce, in his grave, is rolling right now.
Say it ain’t so, Jobs.
May 18, 2009
I share a home office with my wife. We trade: she provides a constant reminder of the frustration that computers cause most ordinary humans and I provide desktop support. And I am, actually, a certified systems engineer with lots of experience configuring workstations. And for that I was well-paid. So my wife gets a bargain and I don’t ever forget that there is no such thing as a User Interface too simple – a daily reminder I wish I could transmit brain-to-brain to a lot of web developers and designers out there.
My wife has a big Samsung LCD screen that feeds off a Sony laptop running Vista. Ever since we got it, it has never looked right. Fuzzy. I remember playing around with the desktop settings a few times to get the icons and icon text bigger (but still fuzzy) and chalking up the overall lack of sharpness to the largeness of the screen. The resolution was set at 1440 x 900 – inherited from the laptop’s built-in display, probably. I don’t think I even tried jacking it up further because I assumed that everything would become unusably small.
“Damned computers”, I thought to myself. After all, back in the day, plenty of CRT’s looked like hell because in the end, big but a little fuzzy beat out less fuzzy but extremely small. So I let it go.
Then, about a week ago I posted a review of screen-readability guru Bill Hill’s article about screen resolution and how it is so often set wrong.
But not by me, no, never. Couldn’t happen. I’m a systems engineer, right? I’m sitting pretty.
Then a few days later, a light in my brain flashed on.
I walked over to my wife’s screen and, sure enough, when the resolution in Vista’s Display settings were bumped up in line with the screen’s “native resolution” – in this case 1680 x 1050 – everything sharpened up beautifully. And without getting unusably small.
This little episode makes me suspect that a lot of the complaints about Windows Vista have come from it’s having been introduced at about the same time the migration to LCD screens was picking up steam along with the move to laptops where, if a desktop display was also used and it was wide-screen, it was likely to inherit the settings of the physically smaller laptop display. Not knowing about any other options, people simply accepted whatever settings appeared.
A headache in the making, absolutely. It makes you wonder why there wasn’t or isn’t a wizard that pops up to walk people through the options when a new display screen is detected.
But of course experts like me wouldn’t need it. Truly, there is no substitute for experience.