Wired Gadget Lab: Why e-books look so ugly
By Paul Biba
Wired Gadget Lab has a first rate article by Priya Ganapati on ebook aesthetics today.
As books make the leap from cellulose and ink to electronic pages, some editors worry that too much is being lost in translation. Typography, layout, illustrations and carefully thought-out covers are all being reduced to a uniform, black-on-gray template that looks the same whether you’re reading Pride and Prejudice, Twilight or the Federalist Papers.
“There’s a dearth of typographic expression in e-books today,” says Pablo Defendini, digital producer for Tor.com, the online arm of science fiction and fantasy publisher Tor Books. “Right now it’s just about taking a digital file and pushing it on to a e-book reader without much consideration for layout and flow of text.” …
A big part of the problem with the Kindle (the largest selling e-books reader) is its use of the Amazon-specific .mobi file format, rather than the open standard ePub. ePub is based on the XML and CSS standards used in millions of web pages and allows for far more control over layouts than is currently possible with the .mobi file format.
As a result, if publishers want to sell Kindle books, producers like Defendini have to do a lot of manual work to create the digital file. In some cases, that means almost page-by-page customization, ensuring that drop caps appear correctly and that text flows around illustrations properly.
Aside from the above, ebooks today are often sloppily made and show little care or attention by the publishers. I just finished Tony Hillerman’s Blessing Way which is published by PerfectBound, a trademark of HarperCollins. Well, it was full of typos, missing lines and strange spacing when viewed on my Kindle. PerfectBound is anything but perfect. Thanks to Roger Sperberg for the Wired link.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:42 am
The strange spacing is Kindle’s problem. The typos and missing lines are the publisher’s problem.
The lack of “design” doesn’t have anything to do with typos or missing lines, as you noted.
I’ll get back to you when I stop laughing.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Editors are clearly still spending too much time worrying about the wrapper instead of the content. (Tells you something about their real opinion of the content, no?)
I feel for them for losing their pretty color covers to devices like the Kindle. But beyond that, editors would do well to concentrate on delivering 99.998% error-free texts, and stop worrying about whether or not Baskerville Old Face is resident in the device.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Yes, this is the problem with ebooks that are in the control of people who don’t view them as legitimate compliments to print books. Typos? Has anybody heard of spellcheck? Ebooks in the hands of print publishers reminds me of Cinderella being mistreated by her evil step-mother.
There is a pregnant business opportunity here for e-book designers/programmers and creative authors not put off by digital formatting. I very much doubt publishers will make the investment.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:30 am
This only tells me they’re running the non-proofread, non-typeset version through their e-book workflow process (i.e., FIRST) instead of incorporating it into the workflow after editing and proofing has been done.
Why anybody would do that, I do not know.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I imagine it’s because they’re not paying attention? Cinderella doesn’t need a new dress ’cause she never gets invited to the ball.
May 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
@Michael: E-books aren’t “compliments” to printed books. They are legitimate products in their own right, alternate formats for books that are just as valid as printed formats. This is what makes them just as important to produce properly as printed material.
Thinking of them as “compliments” is what puts them in step-brother status against printed books, and why publishers willfully neglect them.
May 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
PDF seems the best currently-available way to offer some sort of differentiation in editions. It’s always been true of course that publishers offered cheap versions for the masses, and leather-bound, larger volumes, with illustrations, at higher prices. It makes sense that some of this would bleed over into etexts too.
As for publishers caring more for the wrapper than the content, well, the wrapper is the sole creative input that the non-editorial staff at the publisher has. Why shouldn’t they take pride in their work? After all, it’s the cover that sells, and cover artists often get paid more than the authors, I’ve heard. (Though I shook my head when I heard it.)
May 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I can’t believe that the writer was depressed that all books are in the same font. Ebooks really must have come a long way for people to feel like that’s a legitimate complaint. I remember back when e-books came in two fonts on my Palm IIIe: large and small. We would have been delighted if our e-books had the clarity and resolution of e-ink.
I just want my font to be readable. I don’t care if it’s the same font someone else uses.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Steve: I agree with your point, but e-books are compliments in the sense that e-books help sell print books and vice-versa. It depends on what you want from the book.
Frankly I’m of the opinion that print books will be the forgotten step-brother of e-books at some point in the not-so-distant future.
I’m a musician and I don’t do anything with analog music anymore. (But I hear Neil Young still loves vinyl LPs.)
May 18th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
This is just an anomaly of the transition phase brought on by creative destruction in the industry. As an author I can buy great cover art at a one-shot price from designers who must compete in the graphic design market. But when there’s no physical book, the packaging that sells the product will be different. Publishers had better figure out how they can add greater value.