What’s better for reading e-books—’two screens or one?’
The future or the Stanley Steamers of e-readerdom? In the late 1990s the Everybook e-reader appeared with 1280-by-1024-res double screens, and I can also recall a Panasonic double screen e-book gizmo. The Everybook ballyhoo linked to research studies suggesting the superiority of the two screens. Alas, the link was kaput when I tried it.
But meanwhile, guess what? I just ran across some new research at the University of Maryland suggesting double screen screen readers might indeed be useful in many situations. Check out a video starring a prototype. As summed up by an item in the Adaptive Technology blog out of California, paraphrasing Maryland’s Nicholas Chen, here are the pros and cons of that double screen approach:
Some of the benefits of a dual display:
“Easy to read the content
“Better for assessing length of the content
“Helpful for finding new articles
Downside of dual displays:
“Clunky - The device was heavy so opening and closing the cover was awkward as an interaction
“Confusing - the single screen was simpler and less confusing
“Restrictive form factor - grip required to hold device was awkward”
Bottom line: For casual reading, one screen would be enough, thank you. But for serious reading, including situations where you’re using a main source but might often call up other documents, then the double screens would indeed be worth the trouble. So what do you think, gang? Could you use one of these double-screened gizmos?
Related: PDF of Enhancing Document Navigation Tasks with a Dual Display Electronic Reader, by Chen and others. Also see other links. Meanwhile, car buffs could check out the Wikipedia entry on the Steamer, which tells us that “A Stanley Steamer set the world record for the fastest mile in an automobile (28.2 seconds) in 1906.”
April 16th, 2008 at 7:45 am
For me, at least, a double-screen would be a drawback.
First, I am mobile. I read on the train, in restaurants, waiting for appointments, etc. Size is a factor.
Second, though, one screen means I don’t have to move my head and don’t have to move my eyes much. Which means I read significantly faster with an eBook than with a two-page paper book.
I actually see the dual page thing as another attempt to replicate meaningless form of the paper book. Sort of like having a spot for a buggy whip in a car.
Perhaps if I were reading art history, I’d have a different opinion.
Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com
April 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
From a purely reading standpoint, I don’t know that any one form factor is better than the other. User preference and ergonomics are a different issue, however.
If you think about it, we are actually returning to our reading roots. E-book devices are like stone tablets and web browsers are like parchment scrolls.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Having two screens in one reader is pretty much pointless. However, having 2-4 readers might be very useful. What you need is some way for the readers to communicate. E.g., if you have a reference in one of them then you should be able to open the referenced document/page on another reader. (This can of course be done in many ways, one of which is to use bluetooth, although I’d prefer something that doesn’t support such “long” distances, lest we open up holes for spammers (and eavesdroppers).)
April 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Some existing content requires a double page spread in order to be viewed as intended. For example, comics and visually-oriented nonfiction are often based on fixed facing pages that are designed to be seen together — and which sometimes make no sense any other way.
It’s debatable whether two screens is required to view a two page spread. Obviously, it could also be displayed on a screen that is oriented horizontally. However, given current technology, a two screen approach does allow for more display real estate for a given footprint (when it’s folded for travel, that is).
April 16th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I’ve read lots of comics yet I don’t remember coming across anything that requires double page spreads (except a few semi-posters, but those can easily be tilted 90 degrees). I understand that some may require this, but then again, some require the page to be foldable (e.g. in Mad Magazine), or have folded features (like children’s pop-up books), or what have you. Those just won’t work in the e-world, but then again, there are so very many things that work well in the e-world that don’t work in the p-world. I’m 100% for discarding stuff that works only in the p-world.