When paper beats the screen(economist.com)
economist.com
When paper beats the screen
https://www.economist.com/business/2022/12/15/the-enduring-value-of-an-analogue-technology
111 comments
https://archive.ph/JSlSm
A bit wishy-washy, but the general point holds.
Since the 90s, I’ve been somewhat surprised to see the PC technology fail to really learn from how well humans have leveraged printed information that is embedded in our environment.
I figure screens and projectors are simply harder and more expensive than what would be required for the digital to get paper like. But still, it’s disappointing.
Incidentally, just watched a recent Bret Victor talk about his latest application of his RealTalk/Dynamicland system:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXiVOmaVSo
Since the 90s, I’ve been somewhat surprised to see the PC technology fail to really learn from how well humans have leveraged printed information that is embedded in our environment.
I figure screens and projectors are simply harder and more expensive than what would be required for the digital to get paper like. But still, it’s disappointing.
Incidentally, just watched a recent Bret Victor talk about his latest application of his RealTalk/Dynamicland system:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXiVOmaVSo
The right balance is probably a mix of digital and analogue, so yes leveraging printed information where it’s more cost effective or practical is a good call.
Now, I think there really are better interfaces than paper in most of our everyday use cases, and it’s more on what people are used to or what they’re comfortable with (the Chinese student example in the article is basically that). It’s totally valid, and everyone has preferences, it should just be explicited that it’s really about individual taste.
Now, I think there really are better interfaces than paper in most of our everyday use cases, and it’s more on what people are used to or what they’re comfortable with (the Chinese student example in the article is basically that). It’s totally valid, and everyone has preferences, it should just be explicited that it’s really about individual taste.
For those confused, the Bret Victor bit comes later in the video. Yes, the beginning is Shawn Douglas talking about protein visualisation.
BV starts at about 14 minutes.
BV starts at about 14 minutes.
holy shit that duck animation is so good, it also teaches a bit on data collection and matching, love it
I use a paper notebook every day in my job. Pen and paper is a help for the mind, part of thinking out loud maybe. Far too long was I content with staring into a screen and trying to "think harder".
As it has been said elsewhere, what I jot down are not finished thoughts but steps on the way there.
As it has been said elsewhere, what I jot down are not finished thoughts but steps on the way there.
I've tried using various digital Todo lists but nothing compares to the sticky notes on my monitor.
> Doodling on a phone is just not as satisfying.
Not the main point of the article, but that remark stood out to me.
I sometimes still take notes on paper. Doodling to pass the time or let my thoughts wander is relaxing.
I remember doing it all the time as a child. Do children still have this experience?
Not the main point of the article, but that remark stood out to me.
I sometimes still take notes on paper. Doodling to pass the time or let my thoughts wander is relaxing.
I remember doing it all the time as a child. Do children still have this experience?
> Do children still have this experience?
Haha, yes, we are not that far gone..
Haha, yes, we are not that far gone..
Some very much are.
>Do children still have this experience?
Our children do.
Son designed a seal to stamp on paper this week. Learned that it reverses the image, and that ink dries out.
Our children do.
Son designed a seal to stamp on paper this week. Learned that it reverses the image, and that ink dries out.
When I was using my surface pro 4 - I found it quite good for doodling (and note taking) in meetings. My ReMarkable 2 are in some ways better, some worse in this respect (I find I miss bright colored sketches, on the other hand the rm2 feels quite like pencil/pen and paper).
Here's the ordered list of publications mentioned in this article.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2021.1347
[2] https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1297
[3] https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211059540
[4] https://hbr.org/2022/07/how-paper-catalogs-remain-relevant-i...
[1] https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2021.1347
[2] https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1297
[3] https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211059540
[4] https://hbr.org/2022/07/how-paper-catalogs-remain-relevant-i...
"In a series of 10 studies, we find that people are more likely to make virtuous decisions on paper than on a digital device because they perceive choices on paper as more real..."
Right, that's not only my experience but also those with whom I've worked (see my earlier post of refusing instructions by email, when on paper they were real and held much more weight).
Right, that's not only my experience but also those with whom I've worked (see my earlier post of refusing instructions by email, when on paper they were real and held much more weight).
The digital medium often strips human expression when capturing input.
Devices such as the Apple Pencil are getting better at capturing pressure and highly-detailed paths, which inturn are encoded as vectors and can gather information that is lost in physical mediums, such as coordinates, drawing order, and temporality, even capturing things not present on paper such as hover gestures and pressure.
Yet it's common practice to reduce gestures and clicks to points, lines, or curves - two clicks from thousands of users in a CAD environment may output the exact same line from point A to point B - which often forget about the expressiveness of pencil strokes on a sheet of paper, features which could be used by machine learning algorithms to discern intent in the input of different users.
Devices such as the Apple Pencil are getting better at capturing pressure and highly-detailed paths, which inturn are encoded as vectors and can gather information that is lost in physical mediums, such as coordinates, drawing order, and temporality, even capturing things not present on paper such as hover gestures and pressure.
Yet it's common practice to reduce gestures and clicks to points, lines, or curves - two clicks from thousands of users in a CAD environment may output the exact same line from point A to point B - which often forget about the expressiveness of pencil strokes on a sheet of paper, features which could be used by machine learning algorithms to discern intent in the input of different users.
LCD screens are a wonderful technology that has unfortunately been adopted for a whole range of unsuitable applications.
this article talks about writing, but I want to highlight the viewing part.
LCDs were not made to be stared at for hours on end, e-ink displays on the other hand were made exactly for that purpose. they don't tire your eyes more than a piece of paper and they require external light to be visible. this is very much in tune with how every single object has worked in the whole history of humankind until the invention of artificial illumination.
in my opinion working for 8 hours in an office starting at an LCD screen should be considered as damaging as sitting at a computer for 8 hours with an incorrect posture. you end up with a headacke and your eyes burn, and the rest of the day is just painful to continue.
this wouldn't be the case if some technology was invented that had the refresh rate and color palette of standard LCD screens while having the pleasant viewing experience of digital paper. I think many people would drop their books or even their e-book readers if normal tablet or computer monitors weren't painful to look at.
this article talks about writing, but I want to highlight the viewing part.
LCDs were not made to be stared at for hours on end, e-ink displays on the other hand were made exactly for that purpose. they don't tire your eyes more than a piece of paper and they require external light to be visible. this is very much in tune with how every single object has worked in the whole history of humankind until the invention of artificial illumination.
in my opinion working for 8 hours in an office starting at an LCD screen should be considered as damaging as sitting at a computer for 8 hours with an incorrect posture. you end up with a headacke and your eyes burn, and the rest of the day is just painful to continue.
this wouldn't be the case if some technology was invented that had the refresh rate and color palette of standard LCD screens while having the pleasant viewing experience of digital paper. I think many people would drop their books or even their e-book readers if normal tablet or computer monitors weren't painful to look at.
If your LCD is tiring your eyes, it's set too bright. E-ink has the advantage that it automatically shows the correct brightness for the lighting conditions, but there's nothing inherently less tiring about it. I have keybinds set to change my monitor brightness using DDC, so I can easily adjust my LCD's brightness as needed.
> If your LCD is tiring your eyes, it's set too bright.
The race for brightness considered harmful :)
The problem that LCDs have and CRTs didn't is that you lose color reproduction/contrast if you turn down the brightness to healthy levels.
Hopefull OLED fixes that and becomes affordable. But I'm afraid manufacturers will still race for brightness even on a technology that doesn't need it.
> E-ink has the advantage that it automatically shows the correct brightness for the lighting conditions
Tbh I find eink very readable in bright sunlight and it's all downhill from there, to the point that i prefer reading on a tablet with brightness way down and the lights off to eink with a lamp on. But that may be a consequence of staring into LCDs most of my life.
The race for brightness considered harmful :)
The problem that LCDs have and CRTs didn't is that you lose color reproduction/contrast if you turn down the brightness to healthy levels.
Hopefull OLED fixes that and becomes affordable. But I'm afraid manufacturers will still race for brightness even on a technology that doesn't need it.
> E-ink has the advantage that it automatically shows the correct brightness for the lighting conditions
Tbh I find eink very readable in bright sunlight and it's all downhill from there, to the point that i prefer reading on a tablet with brightness way down and the lights off to eink with a lamp on. But that may be a consequence of staring into LCDs most of my life.
There's even software that can adapt that DDC brightness automatically using the ambient light around you. I develop Lunar (https://lunar.fyi) that can do that for macOS.
For me, the screens I use are always at the brightness where white regions are as comfortable as a piece of paper. Sure, colors aren't reproduced "as the artist/developer wanted" at those values, but neither do I need that, nor do we have e-ink screens that can reproduce color more accurately.
I just want to create software, research stuff on the internet, arrange my music etc. and if I feel like doing that for 10 hours straight, I only want the screen to tire my eyes as little as possible.
I also read a lot of books and research material, both on Kindle and paper. My eyes get tired after hours of doing that as well. Light is not the only factor.
So although it's good to try to be optimal about the light that gets in your eyes over large periods of time, it's best to also try periodic rest and moving some activities to non-screen mediums instead of fretting endlessly over the last 5% of screen light optimization.
For me, the screens I use are always at the brightness where white regions are as comfortable as a piece of paper. Sure, colors aren't reproduced "as the artist/developer wanted" at those values, but neither do I need that, nor do we have e-ink screens that can reproduce color more accurately.
I just want to create software, research stuff on the internet, arrange my music etc. and if I feel like doing that for 10 hours straight, I only want the screen to tire my eyes as little as possible.
I also read a lot of books and research material, both on Kindle and paper. My eyes get tired after hours of doing that as well. Light is not the only factor.
So although it's good to try to be optimal about the light that gets in your eyes over large periods of time, it's best to also try periodic rest and moving some activities to non-screen mediums instead of fretting endlessly over the last 5% of screen light optimization.
I've been looking for this software for ten years. My eyes thank you!
> E-ink has the advantage that it automatically shows the correct brightness
It doesn't because e-ink is a non-light-emitting technology so has no concept of brightness. Ambient light is what lights it up usually (unless one turns an entirely optional backlight on to read in the dark). So you don't need to adjusts as there's nothing to adjust, it's literally ambient light bouncing back, so is the same brightness by virtue of being the same light source.
Conversely, typical displays (TN, IPS, OLED, CRT even...) being a light emitting technology, one needs to turn backlight up as ambient light increases as both compete. (That is, unless it's a transflective LCD, but even then it's quite dim in ambient light).
> there's nothing inherently less tiring about it
e-ink really is more like paper, while typical displays are like turning a flashlight straight towards your eyes.
It doesn't because e-ink is a non-light-emitting technology so has no concept of brightness. Ambient light is what lights it up usually (unless one turns an entirely optional backlight on to read in the dark). So you don't need to adjusts as there's nothing to adjust, it's literally ambient light bouncing back, so is the same brightness by virtue of being the same light source.
Conversely, typical displays (TN, IPS, OLED, CRT even...) being a light emitting technology, one needs to turn backlight up as ambient light increases as both compete. (That is, unless it's a transflective LCD, but even then it's quite dim in ambient light).
> there's nothing inherently less tiring about it
e-ink really is more like paper, while typical displays are like turning a flashlight straight towards your eyes.
but the e-ink displays have a dull gray background. While printer paper is the bright bleached white which a lot more pleasing and easier to read.
>there's nothing inherently less tiring about it
e-ink doesn't flicker.
I know that past a certain number of Hz our brain just mushes the images together and we magically perceive that the motions on the screen are fluid, just like we believe our electric lights are completely on all of the time. But even though our final perception might be continuous, maybe there are steps in the image processing pipeline in our brain where something gets overloaded by the discrete refreshing of the screen.
e-ink doesn't flicker.
I know that past a certain number of Hz our brain just mushes the images together and we magically perceive that the motions on the screen are fluid, just like we believe our electric lights are completely on all of the time. But even though our final perception might be continuous, maybe there are steps in the image processing pipeline in our brain where something gets overloaded by the discrete refreshing of the screen.
My LCD doesn't flicker either. Some LCDs use pulse-width modulated backlights, which do flicker, and there are gaming LCDs with optional strobing to improve motion clarity, but these are not inherent to the LCD technology.
> not inherent to the LCD technology.
actually they kinda are
Blue light from close distance screens is the enemy of your eyes and has many other side effects.
https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/cultivating-health/blue-ligh...
actually they kinda are
Blue light from close distance screens is the enemy of your eyes and has many other side effects.
https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/cultivating-health/blue-ligh...
The amount of blue light emitted by an LCD depends on the backlight used. Some brands advertise low blue light. You could even build an LCD with zero blue light emission if you wanted to, at the cost of being unable to display blue. And even with a conventional backlight, you can reduce the blue light to very low levels in software, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_(software)
E-ink reflects light over a broad spectrum, so the amount of blue depends on the amount of blue it's illuminated with. It can be higher than the LCD in some conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_(software)
E-ink reflects light over a broad spectrum, so the amount of blue depends on the amount of blue it's illuminated with. It can be higher than the LCD in some conditions.
not disagreeing, but you can't chose the display of the laptop most of the times.
Besides, in the last 2 years people reported many more cases of eye strain and blurred vision (at least in my country), because "home" is not really the best work environment for 95% of the people.
There's a reason why offices are always well illuminated.
e-inks are usually used with lights turned off and when ate not I use the red light because it's better for reading.
Besides, in the last 2 years people reported many more cases of eye strain and blurred vision (at least in my country), because "home" is not really the best work environment for 95% of the people.
There's a reason why offices are always well illuminated.
e-inks are usually used with lights turned off and when ate not I use the red light because it's better for reading.
Maybe you're misunderstanding the usage of "flicker" here. I'm not saying that I can see my monitor flickering, because nobody can past a certain refresh rate. What I'm saying is that any monitor inherently flickers because of its refresh rate, independently of our perception.
Refresh rate is not the same as flicker.
Refresh rate is the rate at which new information is displayed. Flicker is things turning on and off.
As the parent mentioned, some screens use fast cycles of turning on/off to modulate perceived brightness, but this is not always the case.
Refresh rate is the rate at which new information is displayed. Flicker is things turning on and off.
As the parent mentioned, some screens use fast cycles of turning on/off to modulate perceived brightness, but this is not always the case.
I'm not entirely sure if what's being said is true but I believe the intention is to stay:
All LCDs "flicker" in the same way all movies "flicker". The technology simply displays or flashes a series of still images quick enough to be perceived as fluid motion or video.
All LCDs "flicker" in the same way all movies "flicker". The technology simply displays or flashes a series of still images quick enough to be perceived as fluid motion or video.
I'm not sure that's the intention, because they said that "e-ink doesn't flicker". But e-ink certainly has a refresh rate. So I think they attribute some other form of flickering to LCD.
(And in fact, some of the e-ink readers with optional display lighting will use PWM to modulate its brightness, and then exhibit flicker. This is a super dumb engineering choice, though, so it's not very common. The Kobo Forma was an offender.)
(And in fact, some of the e-ink readers with optional display lighting will use PWM to modulate its brightness, and then exhibit flicker. This is a super dumb engineering choice, though, so it's not very common. The Kobo Forma was an offender.)
Fair point. E-ink does refresh the entire screen though, correct? It's closer to a old-school slide projector than a monitor. I admittedly know little about this topic.
As an aside, I'd love a secondary e-ink monitor. Hopefully the technology improves so prices come down.
As an aside, I'd love a secondary e-ink monitor. Hopefully the technology improves so prices come down.
> E-ink does refresh the entire screen though, correct?
No, e-ink displays and controllers support partial updates.
No, e-ink displays and controllers support partial updates.
Thank you for the correction.
>But e-ink certainly has a refresh rate
of course it has a refresh rate when there is a change in the image, but if I'm reading something completely static then literally nothing changes whereas an LCD screen still does things in the background
of course it has a refresh rate when there is a change in the image, but if I'm reading something completely static then literally nothing changes whereas an LCD screen still does things in the background
On an LCD also nothing changes when the display image is static.
When the image is not static, because an LCD updates line by line, if you don't coordinate your data updates to the refresh rate you can get artifacts such as "tearing", where different sections of the monitor show different data that doesn't fit together. However, e-ink displays doing differential or fast partial updates have similar problems (and some exciting new ones, making refresh overall quite bad). You just usually don't try to display fast moving imagery on them.
e-ink displays are what is known as "bi-stable", meaning you don't need to apply a voltage to keep a pixel in a particular state, only when you want to change that state. This is not true for LCD, where you do need to keep supplying a voltage. This however doesn't result in any visual change if the voltage isn't changing.
The real difference here is that LCDs aren't reflective, unlike e-ink. So you need a backlight, and that light shining at your eyes is more tiring than how things work with an e-ink display. That either doesn't need a backlight (in a bright ambiance), or the LED lighting isn't behind the display and doesn't shine directly at you, but rather bounces through the display surface. This is a nice quality.
When the image is not static, because an LCD updates line by line, if you don't coordinate your data updates to the refresh rate you can get artifacts such as "tearing", where different sections of the monitor show different data that doesn't fit together. However, e-ink displays doing differential or fast partial updates have similar problems (and some exciting new ones, making refresh overall quite bad). You just usually don't try to display fast moving imagery on them.
e-ink displays are what is known as "bi-stable", meaning you don't need to apply a voltage to keep a pixel in a particular state, only when you want to change that state. This is not true for LCD, where you do need to keep supplying a voltage. This however doesn't result in any visual change if the voltage isn't changing.
The real difference here is that LCDs aren't reflective, unlike e-ink. So you need a backlight, and that light shining at your eyes is more tiring than how things work with an e-ink display. That either doesn't need a backlight (in a bright ambiance), or the LED lighting isn't behind the display and doesn't shine directly at you, but rather bounces through the display surface. This is a nice quality.
If you lower the brightness on an LCD screen, it's going to have terrible contrast even if you use the lowest possible black because the "black" on that kind of screen is achieved by filtering out polarized light. Additionally on some screen models, low brightness is obtained by flickering the backlight which only adds to the discomfort.
When lowering the hardware brightness (either through the monitor OSD or through DDC), the voltage of the LED backlight gets lowered and thus the LEDs get dimmer and less light passes through the crystals. Polarization doesn't come into effect here.
What you're describing happens when lowering the brightness through software (either Gamma adjustments or a dark overlay) because in that case you're only changing the software pixels to be darker.
Although even in that case, newer miniLED/quantumDot LCD screens also lower the LED brightness when pixels get darker, because they have more granular control and dimming an LED doesn't cause shadows over a large area of the screen anymore.
What you're describing happens when lowering the brightness through software (either Gamma adjustments or a dark overlay) because in that case you're only changing the software pixels to be darker.
Although even in that case, newer miniLED/quantumDot LCD screens also lower the LED brightness when pixels get darker, because they have more granular control and dimming an LED doesn't cause shadows over a large area of the screen anymore.
Changing the brightness of an LCD screen does not affect the contrast of the emitted light. The lowest possible black is some percentage of the backlight brightness, not a fixed value. You can see this by changing the brightness while displaying a pure black image. LCDs do also reflect some ambient light, so turning down the brightness will reduce the contrast slightly in most environments, but many LCDs have anti-reflective coatings to mitigate this.
LCD typically has higher maximum contrast than e-ink.
LCD typically has higher maximum contrast than e-ink.
[citation needed]
You make many unsubstantiated claims. I don't get headaches from staring at an LCD even 14h/day.
You make many unsubstantiated claims. I don't get headaches from staring at an LCD even 14h/day.
> I don't get headaches from staring at an LCD even 14h/day.
You are probably a young person (sorry for assuming)
I didn't get headaches when I was 18 and stared for 14 hours straight at a 1024x768 14 inches CRT monitor at 85Hz interlaced.
p.s.: the term you're looking for is "screen headaches"
p.p.s.: http://oaxis.com/lcd-screens-harmful-effects/
You are probably a young person (sorry for assuming)
I didn't get headaches when I was 18 and stared for 14 hours straight at a 1024x768 14 inches CRT monitor at 85Hz interlaced.
p.s.: the term you're looking for is "screen headaches"
p.p.s.: http://oaxis.com/lcd-screens-harmful-effects/
I’m 51 and have been staring at screens for 40 years, on average rather close to the amount of time I’m awake, and I can’t really connect that to headaches.
I’m in my 40s and don’t get these. How old do you have to be before they set in?
I have glasses— without those, I’d probably get a headache. I also use a very high quality 5k monitor and proper lighting. Maybe those make a difference? Maybe I won the genetic lottery? Dunno.
I have glasses— without those, I’d probably get a headache. I also use a very high quality 5k monitor and proper lighting. Maybe those make a difference? Maybe I won the genetic lottery? Dunno.
I don't get headaches, but know many people who do and the frequency have increased lately during covid.
What I suffer from since Covid restrictions settled in and had to work from home all the time, confined in a space that cannot be easy illuminated properly, is blurred vision.
I don't suffer from it after reading an ebook on an e-ink in natural light, but I do after a day of work in front of my laptop display (can't easily move the 30 inches display I had at work because insurance, laws, bureaucracy etc) so mine it's not exactly a scientific study, but a close friend of mine she's an optometrist and she said to me that people reporting eye strain, blurred vision and headaches have almost doubled.It affects older people much more than the younger ones of course, but are treating kids too, that were a rarity before.
They all have in common spending a lot of time in front of an LCD displays at home.
I'm middle 40s.
What I suffer from since Covid restrictions settled in and had to work from home all the time, confined in a space that cannot be easy illuminated properly, is blurred vision.
I don't suffer from it after reading an ebook on an e-ink in natural light, but I do after a day of work in front of my laptop display (can't easily move the 30 inches display I had at work because insurance, laws, bureaucracy etc) so mine it's not exactly a scientific study, but a close friend of mine she's an optometrist and she said to me that people reporting eye strain, blurred vision and headaches have almost doubled.It affects older people much more than the younger ones of course, but are treating kids too, that were a rarity before.
They all have in common spending a lot of time in front of an LCD displays at home.
I'm middle 40s.
Same, never got any headaches from any screens. Regardless of the type of the screen, lighting or viewing position. Have been using computers for almost 25 years, with many 10h days and occasionally 15+ hours.
As I got older I started getting neck pain though, if I sit too awkward. But still no headaches ;)
As I got older I started getting neck pain though, if I sit too awkward. But still no headaches ;)
I am 30. I guess that is young-ish. I try to take care of my health.
Even basic colour support (like 3 colours in addition to black, no grayscale) with a 1Hz refresh rate might be enough for me...
And I would have expected us to have them by now, considering how colour e-paper has passed the prototype stage and is now widely used in supermarkets for labels ??
And I would have expected us to have them by now, considering how colour e-paper has passed the prototype stage and is now widely used in supermarkets for labels ??
[deleted]
Working for 8 hours in an office is already considered damaging, staring at LCD or a pile of paper.
My remarkable 2 seems to work for me. I am always struggeling with note taking. Some times, it makes sense to write directly at the PC, but on occasion pen and paper is the way to go. Problem with paper is that I tend to, either lose it or crumple it and it becomes useless.
With my remarkable I seem to be able to doodle notes better.
For doing homework with the kids, and especially maths, the remarkable is remarkable
we can burn through pages and pages of notes explaining and solving problems.
Using a pen and a medium you can write on is extremely useful, and until you can PAVE the walls with screen and make them as endurable as paper - I will continune to prefer pen + paper.
With my remarkable I seem to be able to doodle notes better.
For doing homework with the kids, and especially maths, the remarkable is remarkable
we can burn through pages and pages of notes explaining and solving problems.
Using a pen and a medium you can write on is extremely useful, and until you can PAVE the walls with screen and make them as endurable as paper - I will continune to prefer pen + paper.
The reMarkable tablet is the best innovation on pen and paper since the ballpoint pen. It's become a thinking tool more so than any other electronic device I have, and it has me daydreaming about a tablet and stylus based computing environment.
Is that really that much better than an ipad air/pro? I don’t particularly care, but some people buy a paper-like screen protector as well.
Are these really worth it? I'm interested in the concept but worry it's not as practical as it looks.
I am happy with my rm2, largely because the note taking/sketching feels great. It's pretty bad as an e-reader unfortunately. It's slow, and sometimes feels unresponsive - although the software keeps getting better.
For reading it would have benefitted immensely from a pair of hw buttons for page turning.
That said - unless you really want exactly the rm2 - I'd say it's maybe two to three times as expensive as it "should" be.
For reading it would have benefitted immensely from a pair of hw buttons for page turning.
That said - unless you really want exactly the rm2 - I'd say it's maybe two to three times as expensive as it "should" be.
I agree with you. I'd buy this at a $200 price point without hesitation.
I don't have any experience with the remarkable, but i recently got a kindle scribe and it's better than the boox ereaders/tablets i've gotten over time.
The clarity, density and speed of the kindle's screen is miles better than boox, probably close to remarkable if the videos are any indication.
I got the Scribe for the large screen to read ebooks, but the pen and its responsiveness and feel is surprisingly good.
i don't know if it does handwriting recognition, but the notebook app has been surprisingly fun for me to jot down notes when i'm contemplating a design problem.
The clarity, density and speed of the kindle's screen is miles better than boox, probably close to remarkable if the videos are any indication.
I got the Scribe for the large screen to read ebooks, but the pen and its responsiveness and feel is surprisingly good.
i don't know if it does handwriting recognition, but the notebook app has been surprisingly fun for me to jot down notes when i'm contemplating a design problem.
The Kindle Scribe is also overpriced IMO. Plus, native advertisements (even when there's a paid upgrade) offends me as a consumer.
"Burning through pages" is a great way to put it.
No need to worry about sheets of paper lying around or scanning and document what you do.
It's all there.
I especially like that, with the "fineliner," strokes are vector polylines (as opposed to shapes in other brushes) that can be used later to simplify, redraw, and animate documents.
The thing about a screen is that it's a tiny window into a wide world. To find anything at all, you must drill down into that myriad of screens to find the one that is relevant.
Now, stick a postit on your fridge or on your work screen. Do you need to interact specifically with that note? No. Every time you scan the room, your eyes will connect with that image of that postit and despatch it to your retina and brain. You don't even need to be able to read that postit from where you are. The mere fact that your brain registers its presence, also connects within your brain to know the content of that note, legible at that moment or not.
At home we use a paper calendar in the kitchen. That works far better than Google calendar or the iPhone calendar. We see stuff everyday that may be two or three weeks in the future, thus reinforcing the memory of that item such that it never suddenly gets sprung on us that 'Today is the day for X'.
Now, stick a postit on your fridge or on your work screen. Do you need to interact specifically with that note? No. Every time you scan the room, your eyes will connect with that image of that postit and despatch it to your retina and brain. You don't even need to be able to read that postit from where you are. The mere fact that your brain registers its presence, also connects within your brain to know the content of that note, legible at that moment or not.
At home we use a paper calendar in the kitchen. That works far better than Google calendar or the iPhone calendar. We see stuff everyday that may be two or three weeks in the future, thus reinforcing the memory of that item such that it never suddenly gets sprung on us that 'Today is the day for X'.
I've seen web pages where people talk about putting a great big GANTT chart (or timeline or whatever) up on a wall. Like, a couple of meters/yards. Hit it with annotations and sticky notes. It's public, it's editable, it's grokkable-at-a-glance, it's available to other teams for examination.
Try flipping through the pages of a bound book, skimming for familiar visual clues such as distinctive tables & graphs, or pictures fuzzily remembered. Physically going only about 5 pages per second, but at least each page is fully rendered faster than you can flip to the next one.
Now try it without printing the PDF first.
Now try it without printing the PDF first.
Can anyone recommend a good quality pencil that doesn’t smear? I like pens. I do. I’ve never owned a good fountain pen, but I think I’d prefer a good quality pencil (for short-term notes at least). There’s something about the feeling of the pencil making its mark across paper that is satisfying.
Was given a nice mechanical pencil as a gift years ago and dug it up not too long ago and started using it. It is a .7 mm lead, which I believe is a minimum size for good notetaking for me. All through college I used regular wood pencils and loved writing with them. I believe the thicker leads are more forgiving for writting letters.
I use Blackwing pencils while reading and for day-to-day note taking. Their long-point sharpener is also excellent.
https://blackwing602.com/collections/pencils
https://blackwing602.com/products/blackwing-one-step-long-po...
https://blackwing602.com/collections/pencils
https://blackwing602.com/products/blackwing-one-step-long-po...
Oh yeah...this is along the lines of what I'm after. Thanks.
I love my Pentel Graphgear 1000. If note taking, I really think the way to go is .7 or .9 leads, but .5 is nice if you need fine lines.
I use the .5 for woodworking, but a .7 along with a Rhodia dot paper notepad for my desk.
I use the .5 for woodworking, but a .7 along with a Rhodia dot paper notepad for my desk.
I think it boils down to cost. Digital content is extremely cheap to replicate and distribute; hence the quality of the content is assumed to be lower (and it’s usually the case). One doesn’t have to put in too much effort in producing digital content.
Now with ChatGPT, it’s even more so than ever. It’s practically free to produce digital content.
On the other hand, even by just printing out a doc increases the cost of replication and distribution significantly (compared to pure digital replication); hence the quality of the content is assumed to be higher.
Now with ChatGPT, it’s even more so than ever. It’s practically free to produce digital content.
On the other hand, even by just printing out a doc increases the cost of replication and distribution significantly (compared to pure digital replication); hence the quality of the content is assumed to be higher.
Yes, and I think that's driven a novelty factor. If you spend all day on screens, it's the last thing you want to do more of. The paper book or vinyl record is special because it's disconnected and tactile.
I'm also gradually hearing friends come to realize that their ebooks and streaming movies may vanish at the whims of corporate licensing agreements, but their libraries of physical books and DVDs are durable.
Give it two more years and we might see letter-writing clubs emerge.
I'm also gradually hearing friends come to realize that their ebooks and streaming movies may vanish at the whims of corporate licensing agreements, but their libraries of physical books and DVDs are durable.
Give it two more years and we might see letter-writing clubs emerge.
For me, it never does: https://honeypot.net/post/digital-notes-are-better-than-pape...
Paper is worse for my workflow in almost every way. I keep trying paper-based systems because of articles like this and I keep coming back to digital. I bring this up to say that it’s OK not to like using a pen and paper. Find a system that works for you and not the mode person.
Paper is worse for my workflow in almost every way. I keep trying paper-based systems because of articles like this and I keep coming back to digital. I bring this up to say that it’s OK not to like using a pen and paper. Find a system that works for you and not the mode person.
Try a writing tablet like the Remarkable.
Trust me, I see the appeal. The back of my mind shouts that, if I were to get one, my organizational issues would go away and I’d be hyperproductive.
I’m used to things calling out to me like that.
As a halfway step, I’ve tried using a Rocketbook and scanning things in, with workflows to file text away appropriately.
I’m used to things calling out to me like that.
As a halfway step, I’ve tried using a Rocketbook and scanning things in, with workflows to file text away appropriately.
If it works for you, sure. What I like about the remarkable is that it feels enough like paper that I can write for hours (and I do.)
If I end up with one of these, credit and blame goes to you.
It's very easy to develop a daily writing habit with it. I write in the morning and before bedtime.
> In one part of their study, the researchers approached strangers and asked them to take a made-up survey. Half the respondents were given a pen and paper to fill out the form; the other half were handed an iPad. At the end of the exercise, respondents were asked if they wanted to give their email address to receive information on how to donate to a charity. Those who used paper were much likelier to provide their email addresses.
Forgive my ignorance, but what should this mean?
Forgive my ignorance, but what should this mean?
Likely that the experience of the electrical survey was more aggravating than the pen-and-paper one.
Typing out an email address, especially on a device that isn’t yours, does seem to feel particularly tedious.
I don't think that that can be concluded with certainty, or anything else beyond that the people in that survey with pen and paper were more likely to give their email address for charity.
If you want someone to give you their email, give them a piece of paper and a pen and ask politely
Once I thought about it, I realized that on some lizard-brain level with no logical reasoning present, I am indeed more likely to agree to give someone an email if they asked me to write it down on paper vs. type it in somewhere.
I can think of many different reasons for why, but they are all just guesses at best. One that comes to mind is that writing it on paper feels more "personal", as in "i am giving you this piece of my info", and I instinctively know that a human will have to look at it, read it, or do something else with it. Regardless, a human will have to take a look at it before something else happens to it.
While typing it on the person's device feels much more impersonal and more of a "I am entering my email into this digital form, with no expectations of any real human to ever look at it, with my email probably being sent into some database for some automated processing or spamming me or whatever else".
The latter isn't a real objective concern of mine, both typing and writing it out could easily lead to the exact same outcomes (both good and bad). But just instinctively, I feel that this is one of the main reasons for why it feels different for me on a subjective level in the back of my head.
I can think of many different reasons for why, but they are all just guesses at best. One that comes to mind is that writing it on paper feels more "personal", as in "i am giving you this piece of my info", and I instinctively know that a human will have to look at it, read it, or do something else with it. Regardless, a human will have to take a look at it before something else happens to it.
While typing it on the person's device feels much more impersonal and more of a "I am entering my email into this digital form, with no expectations of any real human to ever look at it, with my email probably being sent into some database for some automated processing or spamming me or whatever else".
The latter isn't a real objective concern of mine, both typing and writing it out could easily lead to the exact same outcomes (both good and bad). But just instinctively, I feel that this is one of the main reasons for why it feels different for me on a subjective level in the back of my head.
I think I can relate with this. However I won't give my email in any form to a random charity I haven't researched beforehand, so this sentiment would prevail, paper or tablet. What you said doesn't relate to the questionnaire they had to do before being asked the email so I don't really get what that part of the study is about.
I recall when as an IT department head I had a difficult CEO who often changed his mind (he seemed to always hold the view of the last person who spoke to him).
My response was to refuse email from him (as emails can be ephemeral). Second, I requested all his future instructions to me be in words written physically in the form of black atoms adhered to sheets of white atoms and signed by his own hand in blue atoms at the end.
It dismayed him and everyone including my staff some of whom I'd instructed to block my emails—yes, I'm likely one of the few heads of an IT department in history who refused to have an email address.
Yes, it worked and he complied and ultimately I had the last laugh but that was only after the feud had become newspaper headlines.
My response was to refuse email from him (as emails can be ephemeral). Second, I requested all his future instructions to me be in words written physically in the form of black atoms adhered to sheets of white atoms and signed by his own hand in blue atoms at the end.
It dismayed him and everyone including my staff some of whom I'd instructed to block my emails—yes, I'm likely one of the few heads of an IT department in history who refused to have an email address.
Yes, it worked and he complied and ultimately I had the last laugh but that was only after the feud had become newspaper headlines.
Respectfully, I would have fired you immediately.
If I had read in isolation a comment such as mine written by someone else then my reaction might have been the same—and I suspect many others would have reacted similarly. The trouble with my comment (of which I was aware when I wrote it) is that I provided little about the actual circumstance and nothing about the background of the matter, which, for obvious reasons, I still cannot do.
In choosing to reply to this story I had a choice of making my point about the often fragile and ephemeral nature of electronic data and I chose an actual real-world example that involved myself in preference to some hypothetical case which would have been less interesting. The fact was at the time email in this organization was both insecure and often ephemeral by nature in that there was no guarantee that copies of it would be kept indefinitely let alone able to be authenticated at some later date (unfortunately the reasons are too involved to explain here, you'll just have to my word for it).
That and the fact that decisions made by the CEO often turned out to be bad or made inappropriately and that he regularly changed his mind about matters that had already been signed off after being influenced by external voices and did so without consultation with his departmental heads caused serious disruption within the organization to the extent that it became almost dysfunctional—not to mention staff morale being reduced to an all-time low was the reason why I demanded he provide me with written instructions under his signature. That I was not fired both vindicated my stance and showed the true gravity of the situation. (I eventually left the organization of my own volition well after the event. Without doubt it was the worst working environment I've personally experienced).
Incidentally, my staff were always loyal to me, in fact I protected them from much of the turmoil. What I was surprised learned from that and other related incidents was who one's real friends were and or those who held strong ethics and who were prepared to stand up for them. I received support from the most unexpected of people—staff, managers etc. from very different departments to IT, many of whom I hardly knew.
I note you chose to focus on my insubordination rather than the matter of reliability, authentication, paper documents, etc. This is not a criticism given the abrupt way I presented my comment, in hindsight I could have worded it more tactfully but in hurried HN posts that doesn't always happen, as here (that said, I'm usually reasonably restrained and careful about what I post online). It was interesting to note that some voters almost immediately voted the comment down after posting but surprisingly the votes fluctuated either way and are now split evenly—in fact to the exact number.
That work incident wasn't supposed to hog the comment, it was only meant to be a stand-in for cases where it's turned out that physical evidence was either much harder to tamper with and or easier/cheaper to authenticate than electronic counterparts.
First I'll mention a personal case, some years ago I had a contractor with a nice important-sounding name do some work on a property where I was not living at the time, it was substandard and he never provided a proper itemized invoice (and after I forced him to provide paperwork it was obvious that many of the newly listed items were only padding). I disputed the bill and the matter went to court and I lost—in the end a bill of around $2,000 ended up costing me over $10,000. He claimed he sent me email which I never received and stated to the court that his computer later failed so he could never prove it. The judge took his word and not mine, so I lost. Had he said he faxed me the info then the situation would have been very different—the printed log sheet of my fax would have shown that he had not done so and it would have been verifiable as fax logs are notoriously difficult to forge well. (I know, in a much bigger case telco comms records etc. could be subpoenaed, but that's well outside the scope of a petty sessions case like mine where the Beak expects to get through a half dozen cases before lunch).
When working in surveillance and remote monitoring (this time with a decent, professional organization) we switched from film cameras to digital ones and then read them remotely (which we couldn't do with film and inconveniently it had to be collected by hand). To switch over we had to go to inordinate lengths to ensure the data link was tamper proof and the data was properly encrypted and authenticated. On the other hand, the physical film was almost impossible to tamper with without it being clearly evident (but again we didn't have the luxury of remote monitoring).
I've many more such instances but not the time to cite them here. Sure, digital data is taking over the world but physical data is extraordinarily difficult to forge well if subject to proper scrutiny/forensics. On the other hand, digital forensics can be both very expensive and often very difficult to detect and or difficult to detect and apprehend the culprits; if were not fact and it were easy to do then we wouldn't be saddled with the many billions of dollars internet fraud that we see every year.
In choosing to reply to this story I had a choice of making my point about the often fragile and ephemeral nature of electronic data and I chose an actual real-world example that involved myself in preference to some hypothetical case which would have been less interesting. The fact was at the time email in this organization was both insecure and often ephemeral by nature in that there was no guarantee that copies of it would be kept indefinitely let alone able to be authenticated at some later date (unfortunately the reasons are too involved to explain here, you'll just have to my word for it).
That and the fact that decisions made by the CEO often turned out to be bad or made inappropriately and that he regularly changed his mind about matters that had already been signed off after being influenced by external voices and did so without consultation with his departmental heads caused serious disruption within the organization to the extent that it became almost dysfunctional—not to mention staff morale being reduced to an all-time low was the reason why I demanded he provide me with written instructions under his signature. That I was not fired both vindicated my stance and showed the true gravity of the situation. (I eventually left the organization of my own volition well after the event. Without doubt it was the worst working environment I've personally experienced).
Incidentally, my staff were always loyal to me, in fact I protected them from much of the turmoil. What I was surprised learned from that and other related incidents was who one's real friends were and or those who held strong ethics and who were prepared to stand up for them. I received support from the most unexpected of people—staff, managers etc. from very different departments to IT, many of whom I hardly knew.
I note you chose to focus on my insubordination rather than the matter of reliability, authentication, paper documents, etc. This is not a criticism given the abrupt way I presented my comment, in hindsight I could have worded it more tactfully but in hurried HN posts that doesn't always happen, as here (that said, I'm usually reasonably restrained and careful about what I post online). It was interesting to note that some voters almost immediately voted the comment down after posting but surprisingly the votes fluctuated either way and are now split evenly—in fact to the exact number.
That work incident wasn't supposed to hog the comment, it was only meant to be a stand-in for cases where it's turned out that physical evidence was either much harder to tamper with and or easier/cheaper to authenticate than electronic counterparts.
First I'll mention a personal case, some years ago I had a contractor with a nice important-sounding name do some work on a property where I was not living at the time, it was substandard and he never provided a proper itemized invoice (and after I forced him to provide paperwork it was obvious that many of the newly listed items were only padding). I disputed the bill and the matter went to court and I lost—in the end a bill of around $2,000 ended up costing me over $10,000. He claimed he sent me email which I never received and stated to the court that his computer later failed so he could never prove it. The judge took his word and not mine, so I lost. Had he said he faxed me the info then the situation would have been very different—the printed log sheet of my fax would have shown that he had not done so and it would have been verifiable as fax logs are notoriously difficult to forge well. (I know, in a much bigger case telco comms records etc. could be subpoenaed, but that's well outside the scope of a petty sessions case like mine where the Beak expects to get through a half dozen cases before lunch).
When working in surveillance and remote monitoring (this time with a decent, professional organization) we switched from film cameras to digital ones and then read them remotely (which we couldn't do with film and inconveniently it had to be collected by hand). To switch over we had to go to inordinate lengths to ensure the data link was tamper proof and the data was properly encrypted and authenticated. On the other hand, the physical film was almost impossible to tamper with without it being clearly evident (but again we didn't have the luxury of remote monitoring).
I've many more such instances but not the time to cite them here. Sure, digital data is taking over the world but physical data is extraordinarily difficult to forge well if subject to proper scrutiny/forensics. On the other hand, digital forensics can be both very expensive and often very difficult to detect and or difficult to detect and apprehend the culprits; if were not fact and it were easy to do then we wouldn't be saddled with the many billions of dollars internet fraud that we see every year.
Absolutely I don't understand how people use Google calender or even worse the outlook calender for any meaningful scheduling.
Which kind of scheduling? My task list is on paper (and in the issue tracker, sometimes at a far less detailed level). But my dentist's appointments and the rare meetings (we do async text comms 99%) are on my phone because it can SCREAM at me when neededd.
With wife and 2 kids who have activities now and then I cannot imagine a life without a shared calendar. Not sure how that would work. Perhaps with rigorous phone calls during the day to so sync up, but that's unfeasible for me at least
You literally share a calender it sits on your fridge and it has your shared appointments.
If I really want to get work done then I need to make myself a to-do list.
If I really want to get work done then I need to make myself a to-do list.
I guess the killer application is the shared scheduling, calendars kept in sync between everyone who is in the same meeting or activity.
The notifications are an advantage. Paper can't scream at you.
Plus, I always have my calendar with me and everything is in one place. I can simply look.
Honestly, it is the same with notes - as in, lists and things to remember later. I always have my phone, so I always have the grocery list and can write down ideas that I have while on the bus or walking.
Honestly, it is the same with notes - as in, lists and things to remember later. I always have my phone, so I always have the grocery list and can write down ideas that I have while on the bus or walking.
I have a travelers journal, and a pen. They're with me at all times. I can also put my ids, and a small wallet inside, with some cash.
This is definitely a downgrade, and not something I managed to do do in the pre-phone days. People are less likely to snoop in my phone, but people around me at the time would open up paper and read it. And it most definitely doesn't fit in women's pockets any better than a phone.
You see, my phone does all of that except provide an ink pen. Plus more. I generally have a map with me. I have a communication device and a camera (which I use quite often to take pictures of otherwise mundane things like manhole covers). I keep some cash and a non-state-supported ID in there. (Passport doesn't fit). I email stuff to myself quite often because it is a quick way to get things from one device to another. I pay for the bus with my phone, pick up packages from the post office with it, and other small things like that.
I'm simply not interested in downgrading to paper for this stuff. I'll use paper for fun (art and stuff) instead.
You see, my phone does all of that except provide an ink pen. Plus more. I generally have a map with me. I have a communication device and a camera (which I use quite often to take pictures of otherwise mundane things like manhole covers). I keep some cash and a non-state-supported ID in there. (Passport doesn't fit). I email stuff to myself quite often because it is a quick way to get things from one device to another. I pay for the bus with my phone, pick up packages from the post office with it, and other small things like that.
I'm simply not interested in downgrading to paper for this stuff. I'll use paper for fun (art and stuff) instead.
What do you mean? What do you use? I use google calendar for meaningful scheduling.
In terms of actually plotting my day and week. Electronic calenders for me don't lead to schedules I'm likely to be able to stick to.
The calendar for me is a coordination tool between me and many other people. Other people can see my calendar, too, and see whether I am available or not.
I guess it also depends on the office structure, I'm very lucky that our team is just the right size for a single secretary who coordinates our calenders if we ask.
And mostly we coordinate with ourselves.
And mostly we coordinate with ourselves.
I'm working in a project with around 4000 people across 330 teams and quite a few different sites in a comm-heavy role - time blocks on the calendar to get work done can be a necessary survival tactic :-)
Setting a reminder that’s visible the moment I wake up and see my phone has a better chance of reminding me than something I’ve written on paper.
But I personally use both. Paper is for ongoing goals I’m working towards since I’ll glance at it several times a day (unless I forget my notebook), but for events and so on, electronic reminders are a “do this now” sort of thing that I can’t accidentally miss because they’re so distracting.
But I personally use both. Paper is for ongoing goals I’m working towards since I’ll glance at it several times a day (unless I forget my notebook), but for events and so on, electronic reminders are a “do this now” sort of thing that I can’t accidentally miss because they’re so distracting.
Ah I think the way I work leads to the opposite working in my notebook and forgetting to check my phone/emails.
I think I'd struggle moving into that kind of setting.
I think I'd struggle moving into that kind of setting.
I feel this hasn’t much to do with calenders themselves, but I’m really curious why you wouldn’t stick to schedules you set electronically.
Is it about the ability to edit it afterward ? Or because it’s not in your hand writing ?
Is it about the ability to edit it afterward ? Or because it’s not in your hand writing ?
I think the biggest and most obvious when it goes wrong factor is.
That electronic calenders are less intentional people chuck over potential times and I don't necessarily consider if they are practical slots. Often I have multiple, up to five, conflicts with various meetings automatically appear in my calender.
If I personally write it into my calender I have a stronger connection with the decision to attend or act at that time. And I just have a better sense in my mind of what that means in terms of that's in a fortnight, that's the day before Christmas etc.
But what's come up in these replies is I'm also at a different team structure that my previous experience with Google calendars. Maybe I'm just not good in a large workforce Vs in a small 5 person team in a 20 office.
That electronic calenders are less intentional people chuck over potential times and I don't necessarily consider if they are practical slots. Often I have multiple, up to five, conflicts with various meetings automatically appear in my calender.
If I personally write it into my calender I have a stronger connection with the decision to attend or act at that time. And I just have a better sense in my mind of what that means in terms of that's in a fortnight, that's the day before Christmas etc.
But what's come up in these replies is I'm also at a different team structure that my previous experience with Google calendars. Maybe I'm just not good in a large workforce Vs in a small 5 person team in a 20 office.
Thanks!
I think having a personal, isolated and well goomed version of what will be your day's schedule is an understandable proposition.
You're probably right that it comes down to the organization's attitude towards time. I currently have meetings that magically appear a few hours before they start, and some disappear or move around. We get Slack messages to discuss and/or negociate these changes, but we see calendering as something fundamentally flexible.
Using pen and paper for that would just make us waste paper without affecting how it works in practice (thinking about it, I was in a startup where the day+week's main schedule was on the corner of a whiteboard, and it would get rewritten quite a bit)
I think having a personal, isolated and well goomed version of what will be your day's schedule is an understandable proposition.
You're probably right that it comes down to the organization's attitude towards time. I currently have meetings that magically appear a few hours before they start, and some disappear or move around. We get Slack messages to discuss and/or negociate these changes, but we see calendering as something fundamentally flexible.
Using pen and paper for that would just make us waste paper without affecting how it works in practice (thinking about it, I was in a startup where the day+week's main schedule was on the corner of a whiteboard, and it would get rewritten quite a bit)
Anyone have notations specifically intended for pseudocode sketching on paper?
(eg the "offside rule" was originally conceived to be easy to interpret even for handwriting)
(eg the "offside rule" was originally conceived to be easy to interpret even for handwriting)
Ken Iverson.
It’s called APL, it is incredibly effective, it won many awards, there’s a book about it called “Notation as a tool of thought” which is a bit dated but still highly recommended.
But it is not really compatible with modern programming languages and styles.
It’s called APL, it is incredibly effective, it won many awards, there’s a book about it called “Notation as a tool of thought” which is a bit dated but still highly recommended.
But it is not really compatible with modern programming languages and styles.
I use set theory/formal logic notation sometimes.
Thanks anon for kindness l
Nothing wrong with saying thank you! but just to save space at the top of the thread, I detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34026745.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34026745.