Support NeoGAF

[Teddman]

The New York Times was the SOLE periodical used as a demo for the iPad's magazine/newspaper reader service during the roll-out and got a lot of publicity as such for what is sure to be a paid service.

They stand to benefit from the success of the iPad, which some are touting as no less than the savior of newspapers in an internet era.

So I don't think it's a stretch to question their motives in running such an article.

Oh come off it, Skepticcman. Jason Blair aside, the Times is pretty much the standard for journalistic integrity and they didn't pay MIT to fabricate this study.

What study? There's none cited in the article.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

The New York Time was the SOLE periodical used as a demo for the iPad's magazine/newspaper reader service during the roll-out and got a lot of publicity as such for what is sure to be a paid service.

They stand to benefit from the success of the iPad, which some are touting as no less than the savior of newspapers in an internet era.

So I don't think it's a stretch to question their motives in running such an article.

I'm willing to accept they saw a corporate benefit in running this article.

But I'm not willing to accept that it in any way matters, because it's not an opinion piece, they didn't generate the info, and it comes from what is pretty much an unimpeachable academic source.

 

[Terrell]

Interesting. I wonder why the New York Times would be running an article downplaying any iStrain that might be caused by reading long form off a backlit LCD such as the iPad?

HMM.

Yes, quite interesting, considering the same article lambasts traditional newspaper print, which is still the PRIMARY revenue source for the NYT, and you've chosen to selectively omit that.

Hmmm, indeed.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

What study? There's none cited in the article.

Poor choice of wording on my part.

They directly quote Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the ophthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Michael Bove, director of the Consumer Electronics Laboratory at the M.I.T. Media Lab, Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, and Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard’s Information Surfaces Lab.

Those guys' credentials >>>>>>>>> knee jerk insta-skepticism. And I'm sure their opinions rest on more than a single study.

 

[Teddman]

They directly quote Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the ophthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Michael Bove, director of the Consumer Electronics Laboratory at the M.I.T. Media Lab, Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, and Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard’s Information Surfaces Lab.

Those guys' credentials >>>>>>>>> knee jerk insta-skepticism. And I'm sure their opinions rest on more than a single study.

Actually, they rest on less than a single study.

Because there has NEVER been a study done on relative eyestrain of reading off of different display types.

Taussig works for HP, one of the biggest manufacturers of computer monitors on earth. What do you think he's going to say?

 

[Tobor]

Don't you get it guys? Any publication with the audacity to print any article that looks favorably on the iPad is clearly suspect. /rolls eyes

By the way, iStrain is about as clever as M$. Stay classy.

 

[Teddman]

Not just any publication.

Both Wired and NYTimes have upcoming paid subscription services which will constitute a vested interest in the iPad. You're saying it's out of line to examine whether they might have an editorial bent towards writing articles favorable to it?

 

[Tobor]

Not just any publication.

Both Wired and NYTimes have upcoming paid subscription services which will constitute a vested interest in the iPad. You're saying it's out of line to examine whether they might have an editorial bent towards writing articles favorable to it?

I think it's hypocritical for someone with as clear an agenda as yours to cast aspersions on professional publications.

Beyond that, find me a publication that doesn't stand to gain from a successful iPad? Do we ignore them all?

Edit: Thanks, Scorcho. It's late and I'm sleepy.

 

[scorcho]

[grammar nazi]

cast aspersions

[/grammer nazi]

 

[Teddman]

And I think it's hypocritical to try and point out that I have a "clear agenda" when you've 194 posts in this thread, mostly overreactive damage control towards anything critical of the iPad in the least.

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Tobor]

And I think it's hypocritical to try and point out that I have a "clear agenda" when you've 194 posts in this thread, mostly overreactive damage control towards anything critical of the iPad in the least.

Pot, meet Kettle.

This isn't about me. It's about you implying that the NYT is colluding with Apple to sell iPads.

If you find an article trashing the iPad, and I insinuate the author is in league with Amazon, feel free to call my kettle whatever color you like.

 

[Solid Moustache]

If they do make an ipad app, its kind of a moot point though because you can't save anything on it anyway! :lol

NeoFUD.
Don't believe.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Actually, they rest on less than a single study.

Because there has NEVER been a study done on relative eyestrain of reading off of different display types.

Taussig works for HP, one of the biggest manufacturers of computer monitors on earth. What do you think he's going to say?

You raise an interesting point about the lack of a comparative study, but you're also moving the goalposts.

This is the salient point here:

“Most of what our mothers told us about our eyes was wrong,” said Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the ophthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Sitting close to a television, or computer screen, isn’t bad for our eyes. It’s a variety of other factors that can cause physical fatigue.”


If the lcd display isn't causing eyestrain, then whether there's been a comparative study shouldn't matter.

 

[numble]

NY Times is teh bias! Sounds like a Fox News person.

 

[tokkun]

Poor choice of wording on my part.

They directly quote Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the ophthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Michael Bove, director of the Consumer Electronics Laboratory at the M.I.T. Media Lab, Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, and Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard’s Information Surfaces Lab.

Those guys' credentials >>>>>>>>> knee jerk insta-skepticism. And I'm sure their opinions rest on more than a single study.

Appeal to Authority fallacy aside, did you take a critical look at what these experts actually said?

“Most of what our mothers told us about our eyes was wrong,” said Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the ophthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “Sitting close to a television, or computer screen, isn’t bad for our eyes. It’s a variety of other factors that can cause physical fatigue.”

For example, the ergonomics of reading screens and the lack of blinking when we stare at them play a big role in eye fatigue. “The current problem with reading on screens is that we need to adjust our bodies to our computer screens, rather than the screens adjusting to us,” Dr. Meredith said.

He is saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with electronics screens, but the problem comes in the way the human body interacts with them. If you are able to change your body's reactions, then you will not have a problem.

How useful is this observation? Are you willing to consciously control the rate at which you blink when reading from those screens? I don't see any feasible techniques listed to adjust one's body.

“It depends on the viewing circumstances, including the software and typography on the screen,” said Mr. Bove. “Right now E Ink is great in sunlight, but in certain situations, a piece of paper can be a better display than E Ink, and in dim light, an LCD display can be better than all of these technologies.”

All he says about LCDs is that they are easy to read in a dark room. I don't think this is news to anyone.

When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. “While you’re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It’s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,” he said.

He says that one source of strain is caused by eye movement, and that it can be relieved with frequent breaks.

He doesn't say that this is the only factor in eye strain, nor does he say whether the rate at which this type of strain accumulates varies depending on what we are looking it.

Today’s screens are definitely less tiring to look at than older displays, which refreshed the image much less frequently, causing a flicker. Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard’s Information Surfaces Lab, said the 120 Hz refresh rate typical of modern screens is much quicker than our eyes can even see.

“The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. “Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”

Mr. Taussig said consumers will pick the type of screen that makes sense on an individual basis. “I don’t think there is a single technology that will be optimum for all the things we want to do with our devices. For example, H.P. sells 65 million displays a year, and they are all used in a different way.”

He says that if you have a 120 Hz LCD, your eye will not be able to detect the refresh rate, since it is faster than the speed of the human eye.

It is implied that a 60 Hz screen would affect some people's eyes, since it would update every 17 ms. His quote also sounds a bit like a sales pitch.

In summary:

-If you are trying to read in a dark room with no other light sources, an LCD is better than paper or e-ink.
-If you are reading in a well-lit room, an LCD can be comparable to paper/e-ink if you are able to adjust physiological processes such as the rate at which you blink to adapt.
-If you are able to take a break every 20 minutes, you will have less eyestrain regardless of what you are looking at.
-If your screen's refresh rate is above 120 Hz, the refresh process won't contribute to eye strain.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

He is saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with electronics screens, but the problem comes in the way the human body interacts with them. If you are able to change your body's reactions, then you will not have a problem.

How useful is this observation? Are you willing to consciously control the rate at which you blink when reading from those screens? I don't see any feasible techniques listed to adjust one's body.

Blinking is recommended primarily because the eyes dry out. Yes, this is easily correctable. I've got fairly dry eyes and my optometrist has made the same recommendation to me, it's not that hard to overcome. It's also helpful that they've made the distinction that these are either user-adjustable or ergonomic factors, rather than necessarily being failures of display technology - though I'm not naive enough to believe no strides can be made there as well.

All he says about LCDs is that they are easy to read in a dark room. I don't think this is news to anyone.

It's placed within the context of eye strain being relative to ambient luminosity. Given the common belief that starting into a screen in a dim room increases strain, that actually is news to anybody who doesn't keep up on the latest in ocular fatigue metrics. Like everybody.

He says that one source of strain is caused by eye movement, and that it can be relieved with frequent breaks.

He doesn't say that this is the only factor in eye strain, nor does he say whether the rate at which this type of strain accumulates varies depending on what we are looking it.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Of course it's not the only factor, we've just read others mentioned in the same article.

He says that if you have a 120 Hz LCD, your eye will not be able to detect the refresh rate, since it is faster than the speed of the human eye.

It is implied that a 60 Hz screen would affect some people's eyes, since it would update every 17 ms. His quote also sounds a bit like a sales pitch.

I personally wouldn't debate this point one way or another without hard data to influence me one way or another. Might be a psuedo-scientific sales pitch, it might not.


I do think there are legitimate display-related factors which influence strain:

Contrast - should be adjustable

Font size - easily adjustable

Luminosity - the brighter the light source, the more the iris muscles have to hold pupil contraction. This is really the primary source of contention between e-ink and lcd. Does a relatively low brightness setting impact the eye more than the photons bouncing off e-ink? There's obviously more light being thrown at the eye, but is it beyond a threshold that induces discomfort? Dr. Meredith would seem to be saying no.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I've been seriously thinking about designing and eventually developing a screenwriting app for the iPad.

 

[Tobor]

I've been seriously thinking about designing and eventually developing a screenwriting app for the iPad.

I'd say go for it, with the caveat that Final Draft could swoop in at some point.

 

[Juice]

And I think it's hypocritical to try and point out that I have a "clear agenda" when you've 194 posts in this thread, mostly overreactive damage control towards anything critical of the iPad in the least.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Wired is crap, Chris Anderson is a cheating plagiarizing hack, they stand to make money off the iPad, and they still have more credibility on the topic than you.

 

[tokkun]

It's placed within the context of eye strain being relative to ambient luminosity. Given the common belief that starting into a screen in a dim room increases strain, that actually is news to anybody who doesn't keep up on the latest in ocular fatigue metrics. Like everybody.

I don't understand how you draw this conclusion.

First of all, it is not clear that he is talking about eye strain. His quote doesn't mention strain at all, and the intro paragraph only asks which provides a 'better reading experience'.

Second, even assuming that he is talking about eye strain, your claim that he is contradicting the belief that 'staring into a screen in a dim room increases strain' is not true. He is not comparing the effect of staring into an LCD in a light room vs a dim room, he is comparing the effect of staring at a piece of paper or e-ink display in a dim room vs staring at an LCD in a dim room.

“Right now E Ink is great in sunlight, but in certain situations, a piece of paper can be a better display than E Ink, and in dim light, an LCD display can be better than all of these technologies.”

All he is saying is that as you reduce the ambient light, there is a point where it becomes extremely difficult to read a non-light-emitting surface.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I don't understand how you draw this conclusion.

First of all, it is not clear that he is talking about eye strain. His quote doesn't mention strain at all, and the intro paragraph only asks which provides a 'better reading experience'.

What do you interpret "better reading experience" to mean in this context, if not relative lack of ocular fatigue? Other metrics - display quality, size, etc. don't seem to apply here, as obviously LCD technology is more matured in those areas.

Second, even assuming that he is talking about eye strain, your claim that he is contradicting the belief that 'staring into a screen in a dim room increases strain' is not true. He is not comparing the effect of staring into an LCD in a light room vs a dim room, he is comparing the effect of staring at a piece of paper or e-ink display in a dim room vs staring at an LCD in a dim room.

One would assume "better reading experience" includes not damaging/unnecessarily straining eyes, which is the common perception.

All he is saying is that as you reduce the ambient light, there is a point where it becomes extremely difficult to read a non-light-emitting surface.

He doesn't quantify what he means by dim light, whether that means a situation where a non-light emitting surface is rendered less visible, or to the point of extreme difficulty as you put it. There's not really enough to split hairs over there one way or the other.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I'd say go for it, with the caveat that Final Draft could swoop in at some point.

I would be concerned if the company behind Final Draft weren't incredibly slow to adapt. They seem content with their bloated industry standard software.

 

[Teddman]

Wired is crap, Chris Anderson is a cheating plagiarizing hack, they stand to make money off the iPad, and they still have more credibility on the topic than you.

In that case, thanks--it's nice to have a guy with an objective viewpoint on Apple backing up my observations.

 

[Tobor]

I would be concerned if the company behind Final Draft weren't incredibly slow to adapt. They seem content with their bloated industry standard software.

That's an excellent point. Well, If you get it done, you've got a least one sale right here.

 

[darkwing]

So is there an exact date? I want to buy it now!

 

[Jill Sandwich]

If they do make an ipad app, its kind of a moot point though because you can't save anything on it anyway! :lol

Sorry, but you can, and also transfer those files too.

Napoleonthechimp, make it like Scrivener and you'll have a winner!

 

[SomeDude]

Most of the products Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have are actually done by the Military Idustrial Complex and handed over to them.


Socialize risk, privatize profits.

 

[Jill Sandwich]

So is there an exact date? I want to buy it now!

January 27th + 60 days = March 28th

Most of the products Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have are actually done by the Military Idustrial Complex and handed over to them.

Socialize risk, privatize profits.

Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Sorry, but you can, and also transfer those files too.

Napoleonthechimp, make it like Scrivener and you'll have a winner!

*googles* I had ideas for something very similar to that actually. I'm approaching it from a perspective of what I - as someone who has been writing screenplays for some time - would actually want. Wireless collaboration and outlining is a major part of my initial designs.

The only thing that really concerns me about the iPad is that the onscreen keyboard seems to take up a significant portion of the screen in landscape mode. I hope that's adjustable but I doubt it.

 

[numble]

*googles* I had ideas for something very similar to that actually. I'm approaching it from a perspective of what I - as someone who has been writing screenplays for some time - would actually want. Wireless collaboration and outlining is a major part of my initial designs.

The only thing that really concerns me about the iPad is that the onscreen keyboard seems to take up a significant portion of the screen in landscape mode. I hope that's adjustable but I doubt it.

I think the new SDK allows custom keyboards, not entirely sure though.

 

[Jill Sandwich]

I think the new SDK allows custom keyboards, not entirely sure though.

You'd be right.

 

[mehdi_san]

Has this been posted yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEs7Bu9c2GI
Can't stop singing it now ^^ And I want nachos

 

[tirminyl]

Has this been posted yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEs7Bu9c2GI
Can't stop singing it now ^^ And I want nachos

Oh man. I want nachos too! And the song is stuck in my head.

 

[Stinkles]

Most of the products Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have are actually done by the Military Idustrial Complex and handed over to them.


Socialize risk, privatize profits.

wat

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Has this been posted yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEs7Bu9c2GI
Can't stop singing it now ^^ And I want nachos

:lol :lol :lol

 

[giga]

Most of the products Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have are actually done by the Military Idustrial Complex and handed over to them.


Socialize risk, privatize profits.

I have been saying this for years. Regardless of what Jobs said or thought of IBM in the 80s (one of the originals to sell off the American public), he and his behemoth of a company have since fell down the same treacherous path.

Eisenhower is rolling in his grave.

 

[Gowans]

I'm crossing back and fourth between iPad and Desktop PC gaming upgrade.

I just can't get over the lack of flash/web extensions for browsing the web when that's what I'm gona use it for. It's great it's mega portable but it's gona be such a limited browsing experience.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

I'm crossing back and fourth between iPad and Desktop PC gaming upgrade.

I just can't get over the lack of flash/web extensions for browsing the web when that's what I'm gona use it for. It's great it's mega portable but it's gona be such a limited browsing experience.

qft

Same as me. I can't use this seriously for the web if there's no flash in all reality

 

[Terrell]

qft

Same as me. I can't use this seriously for the web if there's no flash in all reality

I really want to ask, since "no Flash" is such a huge sticking point for so many people, what do you use the web for that demands the presence of Flash?

Oh, and for the record, after looking through the rest of the internet on this particular subject, I would just like to say that I'm so proud of GAF right now for actually having the least ridiculous iPad discussion on the internet. And yes, that includes Apple's own forums.

 

[shantyman]

I really want to ask, since "no Flash" is such a huge sticking point for so many people, what do you use the web for that demands the presence of Flash?

Oh, and for the record, after looking through the rest of the internet on this particular subject, I would just like to say that I'm so proud of GAF right now for actually having the least ridiculous iPad discussion on the internet. And yes, that includes Apple's own forums.

I agree. I do a significant portion of my we surfing on the iPhone and never ONCE had an issue because Flash was not supported.

 

[Dartastic]

I just realized how ridiculously perfect the iPad is for my technology retarded mother. All she needs is Pandora, Safari, and Mail. DONE. o.0

 

[Gowans]

For me I use my iPhone all the time when I can't be bothered to get my laptop.

But for the sites I visit I wan't to see the embedded flash content, I want to watch embedded videos on sites like Giant Bomb, Game Trailers etc. when surfing gaf and not have to get up and get my laptop.

Bacause this is a bigger device for internet surfing I want to be able to view everything without limitation (which I can forgive my iPhone). I want this to by that device and if I have to consider that I may need to get my laptop to view the net in full after having the device then it's a deal breaker.

I love my iPhone to bits, I love the idea of the iPad (and the form factor and battery life) but if it's not a full featured web browser/reader then it's pointless to me till it is.

I have the money put to the side but I might just put it into my desktop for gaming instead. I might reconsider it if when jailbreaking news hits.

 

[mattiewheels]

I have been saying this for years. Regardless of what Jobs said or thought of IBM in the 80s (one of the originals to sell off the American public), he and his behemoth of a company have since fell down the same treacherous path.

Eisenhower is rolling in his grave.

what's the story here?

 

[Terrell]

For me I use my iPhone all the time when I can't be bothered to get my laptop.

But for the sites I visit I wan't to see the embedded flash content, I want to watch embedded videos on sites like Giant Bomb, Game Trailers etc. when surfing gaf and not have to get up and get my laptop.

Bacause this is a bigger device for internet surfing I want to be able to view everything without limitation (which I can forgive my iPhone). I want this to by that device and if I have to consider that I may need to get my laptop to view the net in full after having the device then it's a deal breaker.

I love my iPhone to bits, I love the idea of the iPad (and the form factor and battery life) but if it's not a full featured web browser/reader then it's pointless to me till it is.

I have the money put to the side but I might just put it into my desktop for gaming instead. I might reconsider it if when jailbreaking news hits.

So it's primarily an issue with not being able to see trailers for games on it and other random miscellaneous Flash-dependant pages GAF links to for you?
Hmmm... I'll end up doing the same thing I do with my iPhone: bookmark the page with the Flash content so it syncs up with my Safari bookmarks over the air and view it when I have an opportunity to sit at my desktop rig to watch it. It seems to work pretty good for me, since it's not like internet content will vanish in the few hours it will be between bookmarking the page and sitting at my desktop computer, but then again, I'm in no position to say that will work for everyone else.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

But for the sites I visit I wan't to see the embedded flash content, I want to watch embedded videos on sites like Giant Bomb, Game Trailers etc. when surfing gaf and not have to get up and get my laptop.

Giant Bomb has an app and Game Trailers has been adding in iPhone support for a while.

 

[Gowans]

That was just example but there are a loads of other similar things.

I just can't get behind the fact of having a web browser that doesn't show me all of the web content or having to use a different device.

As I said I might consider it if jailbreaking can fix it or a competitor sorts it.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

That was just example but there are a loads of other similar things.

I just can't get behind the fact of having a web browser that doesn't show me all of the web content or having to use a different device.

As I said I might consider it if jailbreaking can fix it or a competitor sorts it.

Great! You know you don't want one. I"m sure there are devices that will suit your needs much better. The HP Slate will do Flash I'm sure.

 

[kaching]

I'm bemused and skeptical of the notion that the best way to address the complaints levelled at one app (Flash) is to create many apps in its stead. If we don't trust a well-established software development company like Adobe to resolve performance and security issues raised in relation to one app, why would we assume that the situation would be better farming out uses cases to dozens of different dev teams, many of which will not have any particular pedigree for efficient, reliable code?

On top of that, how is this simplifying things? More apps, more icons, more things to manage, undermining not just Flash but the Web's fundamental ability to organize and interconnect for us, so we don't have to worry so much about the bookmarking and organizing on our own. I mean, if I see someone posting a link to a site video that's flash, my process for viewing that video in a flash-enabled browser is 1) click link, 2) wait for video to load whereas in the iPhone OS that process would be 1)exit browser, 2) launch Site's App (if available) 3)Search for specific video that I saw linked in browser, 4) wait for video to load. Or perhaps it's 1) select link, 2)copy link, 3)exit browser, 4) launch Site's App (if available) 5) Paste link in Search 6)wait for video to load.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

If we don't trust a well-established software development company like Adobe to resolve performance and security issues raised in relation to one app, why would we assume that the situation would be better farming out uses cases to dozens of different dev teams, many of which will not have any particular pedigree for efficient, reliable code?

We don't.

I mean, if I see someone posting a link to a site video that's flash, my process for viewing that video in a flash-enabled browser is 1) click link, 2) wait for video to load whereas in the iPhone OS that process would be 1)exit browser, 2) launch Site's App (if available) 3)Search for specific video that I saw linked in browser, 4) wait for video to load. Or perhaps it's 1) select link, 2)copy link, 3)exit browser, 4) launch Site's App (if available) 5) Paste link in Search 6)wait for video to load.

Or 1) click link, 2) video plays.

The non-Flash solutions exist and are simple and principled without needing apps.

 

[giga]

what's the story here?

SomeDude is the resident political conspiracist. If search was up, you'd see his wacko post history.

Anyhow, Notion Ink update. Apparently it can do 16 hours HD video playback. :| I'm putting in my doubts, but we'll see.

http://notionink.in/adamfeature.php