Materiality is the main factor in the difference in affordances between screen and page.
Reading online is becoming quite common and required for many research projects and in academia. Dissertations submitted for marking at many universities are done electronically and sent to markers in PDF form. Amazon has been offering books in Kindle format for some time. Yet paper-based books continue to be published and sold.
‘Materiality’ here pertains to the discrete object which is the tactile and separate artefact having printed text and diagrams on the surface of separate pages. It is distinct from the published or written or graphic work which can be saved in a file in a computer. Although laptops and computer hardware in general are artefacts and material objects that can be transported, their affordances lie in the amount or quantity of files and texts which can be stored on the one hard drive. At the time of writing these are still somewhat heavy and unwieldy so that they are difficult to read in bed or put in one’s pocket for example. However, even with advances in technology that allow small lightweight personal readers such as Kindle to be manufactured and thus easily transported, there are still differences in the affordances of each modality that lend the book and paper magazine their continuing allure.
Now we have the prospect of Apple releasing their iSlate, a small transportable mobile phone enhanced reader – and one might also guess (hope) further enhanced with the capabilities that Han earlier introduced, that is to say, touch screen interfacing.
Here’s one of the latest rumour milling-abouts from Wired: [btw, sorry, but the taped interview is in french - the article tho is in english]
However, there will still be a market for the traditional book methinks. That is because people like me actually prefer books over reading or looking at the same things on a screen. Recently I had a discussion with Frank on why my preferences are for the hard copy over the word on the screen, and how it is that I plump for materiality, and this motivated my attempt here to clarify my preferences in this way. Of course, each modality has its own affordances, and there is precious little that can be argued for or against either in terms of objective differences. But, as a starting point, I have proposed a set of categories for discussing these differences.
In this sense, then, the “Materiality” of the printed page affords ease of:
-Transportability
-Scannability
-Inscriptability
-Eye-easability
Transportability
As stated earlier, nothing beats the ease of slipping a book into one’s pocket or bag. I generally go about with a notebook and pencil in order to jot things down when travelling. These items weigh much less than a laptop, and since I can only afford one laptop, there will not be a special miniature one purchased especially for fitting into a handbag or shoulder-bag for many, including myself. The loss of a book is sad, but generally they are easily replace-able. Not so easy to replace the laptop – or the enhanced mobile phone either for that matter – and certainly the more one transports things hither and yon, the higher the possibility for loss. Weight and wieldy-ness issues also means that books win hands down in a lying down position, and thus there are plenty of books stacked up bedside, but no laptop.
Scannability
This affordance pertains to the ease with which one can scan through a whole book, or the leaves thereof. All of the pages of the whole book are there in one place and the position of various sections may be remembered or marked for ease of retrieval. One is able to flip through the book and scan for various elements, such as chapter headings, diagrams, plates, and so on. One is quickly able to see a page at a time in toto, and this affordance is one of the most useful pertaining to the materiality of books – as distinct from the need to scroll, by whatever means, to take in all the words on a page. Jumping from one page to another is also possible on the screen, but this is not the same as being able to flip through the book and recognise the page number or know how far along or back the searched-for feature appears in the book itself. Search facilities notwithstanding, a book can be searched by visual means which is sometimes more profitable than using a computational engine.
Inscriptability
By ‘inscriptability’ I refer to the ability one has to write directly into the leaves of a book. With PDF files, one is able to insert comments on the fly or make editing comments below the text on the screen, but these need to be ‘inserted’ by means of directions to the software and typing in the comments. The ease of finding comments is also differently arranged. Once inscribed, a visual search can be performed on the book with ease. This is not the same with a computerised file, due to the affordances related to scannability mentioned above.
Eye-easability
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly is eye-easability. Everyone knows that editing can be done much more efficiently with hard copy. Typos and other mistakes one did not notice on the screen become glaringly obvious on the printed page. This is likely to do with dpi, or pixels per square (inch/centimetre). In this regard, the printed page again wins out, and this at least can be measured and compared – the screen’s resolution is no match for that of the page, and thus, reading is easier and the eye does not become as tired as quickly when reading a book or printed matter. When Apple produces a back-lit reading tablet that not only is lightweight, can be read-writable and have as a high a resolution as a printed page, then my preferences may change and books relegated to museums along the way.
Let’s consider the differentiation of affordability between the printed page, and, the compendium of printed pages we term a book. The binding of a book affords Random Access. Yes, scannability; one can open to any page, perhaps doing so purely as a matter of a simple random heuristic. This can also be done with, say, a printed out article. Yet, the binding–with its leafs (?)–is a brilliant architectural conception. You can go very quickly back-and-forth.
I usually don’t write in my books, preferring to use sticky notes. But, years ago, I always would read with a high-lighter at-the-ready.
On the other hand, searchability of a computer text file is part of that class of features which computer power affords. Likewise with wordcounts; and crude indexing. Yet, if I want to move to a new section, unless the computer document provides thumb nails, or some other kind of navigation in a sidebar, I have to scroll and visually obtain the section’s text guide. Scannability…as you’ve pointed out.
Incidentally, my own routine makes the idea of tagging in-coming files a non-starter. The stream of new in-coming documents is too ‘much’ and tagging by hand way too labor intensive.
With printed articles, the labor involved in organizing them is also too much. The main tactic is simple: read each right away. Where they come to rest then becomes less important. I have stacks of articles sitting next to a file cabinet because the file cabinet is full.
Yet, a book presents its title along its edge, obviously face out. Brilliant! But, there is a final challenge given this, which is that any filing system on book shelves requires the user to make room, to push the ‘train cars’ of books aside.
As for the tablet, the (here called,) “back-end” affordance allows for connecting up, via Airport, to storage hardware. Presumably, since one can set-up a web server, wireless connectivity would allow access at all times, as long as you had your tablet with you.
The kindle has prevented books from collecting in my house–something I am fairly firm about not allowing to happen. It is easier to read than a book, but less durable and dear enough that I would not like to lose it. I seldom take the Kindle out of the house, something I have no problem doing with a paperback.
I like having one device that is just for fun. Computers and their tiny progeny are for work. My ebook reader is for when the work is done.
Simon
so the issues of scannability or scriptability may be moot for the case of the novel.
otoh, as you note, the transportability quotient is at present lowered by the cost of the item – its affordability rather than its affordances, if you don’t mind.
still, issue of eye-easability may still come up due to those numbers of pixels – but i’ll really reserve judgement on that until i actually read something using one….
admitted to the science degree, he was bound to choose his courses, and name them from a dizzying selection and a variety of parallels and allowances. should he elect to take biotech or nanotech which is a set course for the whole three years, or should he do a more loosely organised science degree with open choice as to what subjects he might take, including space for external-to-science dept courses along the way?
he and P consulted the university website equipped with his offer of a place, and trawled back and forth through the course descriptions, the credit allowances, the number of hours, the flexibility for change, and the levels of difficulty on the website for two full hours, eventually writing out the possibilities on a piece of paper in diagram form.
but in order to check and comprehend what was on offer and how to accommodate preferences, it was in the end, necessary to actually print out the various course descriptions and pathways through the courses in order to be able to more clearly understand what was going on – to see them side-by-side, and to be able to flip back and forth among them easily.
at registration today, his ma and pa reported that even the hapless chemistry teacher they asked regarding the possibilities for pursuing his choices, admitted that the course requirements and possibilites were confusing and that she was not quite sure whether he could combine the courses he wanted to do… admitting too that the website though comprehensive, could be confusing.
luckily, they had come with the printed-out hardcopy web pages and could refer to them in need, one after the other, and in tandem, without having to be connected to what is a very expensive mobile network here, or having to navigate through the labyrinthine university website.