Do you find printed matter easier to read?

[Rob Lang]

Before I marked Icar 4 as Beta, I'd read it through 4 times. Each time was on a screen and for the 3rd and 4th draft, I'd rather rub excrement into my eyes. It was such a struggle reading the same paragraphs over and over. You'd think that it would be a joy but it's not. It's a terrible chore. A chore you really must go through.

I had a read through the print copy last night and it was so much easier to read (albeit the contrast in places is dodgy). The words haven't changed since last I read through it. The novelty of having the print in my hand should have worn off after a few pages but somehow it was much easier to read.

Each and every time I've read version 4, it's been on a screen. I can't vouch for iPads or eReader. I imagine tablets are much the same as a screen and I doubt the Kindle would deal well with all the background images in Icar. ePaper (like the Kindle) is probably the same as reading the paper copy.

So why is this? What do you think, Monkeys? Is it the change in medium or is paper just that much easier to read? Perhaps it is because every other read through had been at the same desk in the same room, the same environment. With the paper copy, I was on the sofa in the living room with the Mrs watching America's Next Greatest Asshat (or something) in the background.

I've always recommended authors get a printed version of their game as a gift to oneself but now I'd recommend it if you're having trouble reading the game through before releasing to the world!

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

There are probably a number of psychological factors in why reading printed matter, but there is a major physical component as well.

A book in hand is a sign of progress for many writers. It can be read in many environments and positions, rather than in established work-spaces or rigid alignments to avoid glare. Most of us learned a certain respect for physical objects that doesn't always carry over to a mere icon on the screen. Computers make distracting noises and put so many other options at your fingertips it becomes difficult to concentrate.

Physically, it is a matter of how screens work. Whenever you are looking at a screen, you are staring directly at a light-bulb. Should I have to elaborate on why that isn't comfortable?

Whenever I finish a major draft, I run it over to mom's accounting firm and print it out. Eighty page-per-minute laser printers are a lot nicer than my home inkjet, and they have materials for binding statements as well.

[Evil Scientist]

Printed material is way easier to read. Books (and writing, and printing) are humanity's greatest invention, after all... Easier on the eye, than staring at a screeen (Chainsaw's lightbulb example sums it up pretty much). You can read your book in any position, sit, lay down on your back, etc., no laptop can provide you this comfort.
Printed pages usually have better proportions, crispier fonts, all that stuff.

[kylesgames]

I find the lack of a backlight to be great; staring at a brightly lit screen hurts my eyes, while a simple e-ink Kindle doesn't. Plus, when I have my glasses clean and up-to-date, I can read a 8.5x11 page on the Kindle's display, making it perfect for reading through game books.

I enjoy print more than digital as well, but I hate the weight and potential to get them damaged, so I usually stick to e-ink if I want a print-like experience.

[Onix]

Another explanation I've heard is the imperceptible refresh of the screen isn't really all the imperceptible. It stresses the visual system, only slightly but it builds up over time. Still, all that doesn't explain to me exactly why a screen is harder to read. For instance, if I turn the backlight down on my screen, it doesn't make it especially easier to read. I have noticed that back in the CRT days when the refresh rates were half of what they are now, it was much harder to read on a screen over long periods. Still that's over long periods. When I try to read on a screen I read much slower and have a harder time remembering what I'm reading. I've adapted somewhat and over the years I do better, but I still prefer the page or e-ink.

Some have speculated that it's a difference between reflected light and the light emitted from the screen. Which I guess is CA's argument but again, shouldn't reducing the backlight help with that?

[Evil Scientist]

Also, books are just generally cool.
(I work in a library, after all...)

[misterecho]

To answer the original question: YES. That's why I've been harassing you since 2009 to publish it!

[koipond]

I second Mr. E's comment. ^_^

[vulpinoid]

+1

I much prefer physical books to digital.

I had much the same problem when publishing my goblin tarot companion book. I read, re-read and waited a week before a third proof read before sending it off for printing.

Only after reading through the physical copy did I find a dozen glaring errors in the text (after I had done the 50 book print run).

I'll be making sure I run off a single copy for proof reading before putting through a full order next time.

[Evil Scientist]

I've recently acquired a Kindle, so now I'm familiarizing myself with the world of e-books. Sometimes I just cannot afford to buy and store every book I want to read and nobody can lend it to me, so digital is the way to go. Of course, it wont't replace paper-based books for me - I'm just way too much in love with PAPER, and REAL LAYOUTS (e-books for electronic readers miss out greatly on layout, unfortunately). But the machine is mighty comfortable, stores loads of books, easy on the eyes, comes with built-in dictionaries you can look up autmatically on the go... lots of advantages.

Of course, reading .pdf's is not one of those advantages.

But I guess it'd be great if RPG publishers did some no-pictures (or non-picture heavy), text-only, optimized e-books of their games. And if they re-released some old classics as well...