I can't really agree with this myself. I sit at a computer all day and it is most certainly NOT problem free. If I spend too much time staring at the screen, the eyes begin to ache from soreness. I know I'm not alone in this situation. Ergonomic guidelines call for frequent breaks from staring at a computer screen.
Monitors aren't really set up for reading, though they are used that way. If the ergonomics is correct, it shouldn't be a problem, but it rarely is.
Quote:
Here I have to go back to your comment about shorter articles. Much of the time a person sits at a computer, a lot of their reading is in short bursts. Whether it be an email, or the contents of a Java class file. It usually inherently involves small amounts of text. As I said originally, if you send someone a 10-page report, they're first instinct is going to be to print it out to read over, not stare at it one the computer screen unless there is some absolute requirement to do. It's a matter of comfort; reading large blocks of dense text on a backlit screen is just not comfortable since its similar to staring at a light bulb.
I don't know. Many of us read long technical reports on the monitor without a problem. As I said, it depends on how things are set up.
A light bulb is far brighter than your monitor screen! That's not a good comparison. You can adjust the screen for better comfort. No one requires you to have the brightness and contrast up all the way.
The other problem with most screens is that they come with the factory settings, which is about 9,300 K. That's way too blue for comfort. If it's set to 6,500 K, it's much easier on the eyes.
Most readers allow you to set a warm background which is far better.
But Caliminius posted his semantics comment several hours after I made my post.
Quote:
Do you want to play the game of semantics?
Given that you're the one to bring it semantics into the discussion, it sounds like you wanted to play the semantics game. Your comment was a nitpick as the original statement was very clear in what it meant to say, even if the word choice wasn't optimal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't agree with Job's statement that people don't read anymore, but that's been explained as his meaning that less people read long books as aopposed to shorter articles.
I read a lot, as does my family. Most of my friends do as well.
Who explained it? Did the man who made the original statement clarify it, or was it someone else? Also, the statement was made at a time when the book industry was still growing, I think more than a billion books a year were published worldwide, $30B+ business in the US alone, it would be silly to suggest people don't read anymore, unless someone wants to try suggesting they're all just yellow pages and hotel room bibles. It just made Jobs sound uneducated and uninformed, because his statement wasn't true.
But Caliminius posted his semantics comment several hours after I made my post.
It doesn't matter, it's all part of the thread.
Quote:
Given that you're the one to bring it semantics into the discussion, it sounds like you wanted to play the semantics game. Your comment was a nitpick as the original statement was very clear in what it meant to say, even if the word choice wasn't optimal.
Not so. No areas in which color is a central part of their conceptual understanding is grey considered to be "color". Grey is always understood to be without color. It's the neutral against which the appearence of color is measured. It's not semantic at all.
If you look at any colorwheel, you will see that it's based on the primary colors, then the secondary, or complementary ones. Nowhere on any of those wheels (or 3D spaces) is a grey present, except for when saturation is a part of it. Then, as you approach grey, there is less saturation, until there is none, upon which point it is agreed that there is no color present.
In my business, which dealt with color and B/W, color is understood to mean very specific things. The same is true for broadcasting, physics, etc. It's not considered to be semantics, it's the definition.
Quote:
Who explained it? Did the man who made the original statement clarify it, or was it someone else? Also, the statement was made at a time when the book industry was still growing, I think more than a billion books a year were published worldwide, $30B+ business in the US alone, it would be silly to suggest people don't read anymore, unless someone wants to try suggesting they're all just yellow pages and hotel room bibles. It just made Jobs sound uneducated and uninformed, because his statement wasn't true.
Someone else gave what they said they thought Job's had meant. Jobs had given an interview in which he was asked this, and he had explained firther, but I don't remember to whom the interview was given.
I've already said, twice, that I don't agree with what Jobs said, so don't pile it on me.
Not so. No areas in which color is a central part of their conceptual understanding is grey considered to be "color". Grey is always understood to be without color. It's the neutral against which the appearence of color is measured. It's not semantic at all.
If you look at any colorwheel, you will see that it's based on the primary colors, then the secondary, or complementary ones. Nowhere on any of those wheels (or 3D spaces) is a grey present, except for when saturation is a part of it. Then, as you approach grey, there is less saturation, until there is none, upon which point it is agreed that there is no color present.
In my business, which dealt with color and B/W, color is understood to mean very specific things. The same is true for broadcasting, physics, etc. It's not considered to be semantics, it's the definition
Before you agreed it was about semantics, now you're saying it's not? (just an example here)
I don't think it matters that much, but I'm pointing out that you're writing several paragraphs in an objection to a single misused word: "though they are limited to 16-color grayscale." I don't understand why you're getting so verbose about one poorly chosen word. Your objection was unnecessary in the first place, the original statement was clear that it was a gray scale device.
Before you agreed it was about semantics, now you're saying it's not? (just an example here)
I was saying that you two are using semantics to say it doesn't matter. I'm saying that semantics doesn't enter into it, that there are definitions and undertandings about this. I didn't agree that it was about semantics, I said they you were playing that game. I didn't bring it up, as I pointed out Caliminius brought it up.
Quote:
I don't think it matters that much, I'm just pointing out that you're writing several paragraphs in an objection to a single misused word: "though they are limited to 16-color grayscale." I don't understand why you're getting so verbose about one poorly chosen word. Your objection was unnecessary, the original statement was already clear that it was grayscale.
The trouble begins when people use just one word incorrectly, and further misunderstandings cascade down, as people think that it's the correct usage. We should use words correctly, shouldn't we?
I just made one post pointing it out. You are the one expanding this. I was through with it, but you insisted in chastising me for pointing out the error.
I would easily subscribe to their regular comics, delivered in digital form to my iDevices. I always enjoyed them when I was younger and even more recently I've gotten enjoyment out of the occasional hardback graphic novel.
It's not the price that holds me back from reading comics, but the format. I don't want a comic that is chock full of ads, that I feel compelled to keep. Digital distribution would be great for this.
If I understand this concept though, I don't think I would bite. I don't need live actors and such for this. That sounds like a waste of time to me.
Marvel and DC aren't the only ones exploring the new digital possibilities for comics.
In fact they are still behind the times in my opinion. They are taking the slow road when it comes to developing comics in this new age of digital comics. If you'd like to see a different take on a motion comic, check out my One Strange Way site.
On the site you'll find a demo and a special feature video. The motion comic contains interactivity, motion graphics, puzzles, voice audio,and background music.
I hope to get One Strange Way on iTunes as a motion comic soon.
Comments
Semantics. 16 step, 16 color. 16 shades of gray.
So then, a greyscale monitor was a color monitor?
I can't really agree with this myself. I sit at a computer all day and it is most certainly NOT problem free. If I spend too much time staring at the screen, the eyes begin to ache from soreness. I know I'm not alone in this situation. Ergonomic guidelines call for frequent breaks from staring at a computer screen.
Monitors aren't really set up for reading, though they are used that way. If the ergonomics is correct, it shouldn't be a problem, but it rarely is.
Here I have to go back to your comment about shorter articles. Much of the time a person sits at a computer, a lot of their reading is in short bursts. Whether it be an email, or the contents of a Java class file. It usually inherently involves small amounts of text. As I said originally, if you send someone a 10-page report, they're first instinct is going to be to print it out to read over, not stare at it one the computer screen unless there is some absolute requirement to do. It's a matter of comfort; reading large blocks of dense text on a backlit screen is just not comfortable since its similar to staring at a light bulb.
I don't know. Many of us read long technical reports on the monitor without a problem. As I said, it depends on how things are set up.
A light bulb is far brighter than your monitor screen! That's not a good comparison. You can adjust the screen for better comfort. No one requires you to have the brightness and contrast up all the way.
The other problem with most screens is that they come with the factory settings, which is about 9,300 K. That's way too blue for comfort. If it's set to 6,500 K, it's much easier on the eyes.
Most readers allow you to set a warm background which is far better.
As Caliminius has already said—
But Caliminius posted his semantics comment several hours after I made my post.
Do you want to play the game of semantics?
Given that you're the one to bring it semantics into the discussion, it sounds like you wanted to play the semantics game. Your comment was a nitpick as the original statement was very clear in what it meant to say, even if the word choice wasn't optimal.
I don't agree with Job's statement that people don't read anymore, but that's been explained as his meaning that less people read long books as aopposed to shorter articles.
I read a lot, as does my family. Most of my friends do as well.
Who explained it? Did the man who made the original statement clarify it, or was it someone else? Also, the statement was made at a time when the book industry was still growing, I think more than a billion books a year were published worldwide, $30B+ business in the US alone, it would be silly to suggest people don't read anymore, unless someone wants to try suggesting they're all just yellow pages and hotel room bibles. It just made Jobs sound uneducated and uninformed, because his statement wasn't true.
But Caliminius posted his semantics comment several hours after I made my post.
It doesn't matter, it's all part of the thread.
Given that you're the one to bring it semantics into the discussion, it sounds like you wanted to play the semantics game. Your comment was a nitpick as the original statement was very clear in what it meant to say, even if the word choice wasn't optimal.
Not so. No areas in which color is a central part of their conceptual understanding is grey considered to be "color". Grey is always understood to be without color. It's the neutral against which the appearence of color is measured. It's not semantic at all.
If you look at any colorwheel, you will see that it's based on the primary colors, then the secondary, or complementary ones. Nowhere on any of those wheels (or 3D spaces) is a grey present, except for when saturation is a part of it. Then, as you approach grey, there is less saturation, until there is none, upon which point it is agreed that there is no color present.
In my business, which dealt with color and B/W, color is understood to mean very specific things. The same is true for broadcasting, physics, etc. It's not considered to be semantics, it's the definition.
Who explained it? Did the man who made the original statement clarify it, or was it someone else? Also, the statement was made at a time when the book industry was still growing, I think more than a billion books a year were published worldwide, $30B+ business in the US alone, it would be silly to suggest people don't read anymore, unless someone wants to try suggesting they're all just yellow pages and hotel room bibles. It just made Jobs sound uneducated and uninformed, because his statement wasn't true.
Someone else gave what they said they thought Job's had meant. Jobs had given an interview in which he was asked this, and he had explained firther, but I don't remember to whom the interview was given.
I've already said, twice, that I don't agree with what Jobs said, so don't pile it on me.
Not so. No areas in which color is a central part of their conceptual understanding is grey considered to be "color". Grey is always understood to be without color. It's the neutral against which the appearence of color is measured. It's not semantic at all.
If you look at any colorwheel, you will see that it's based on the primary colors, then the secondary, or complementary ones. Nowhere on any of those wheels (or 3D spaces) is a grey present, except for when saturation is a part of it. Then, as you approach grey, there is less saturation, until there is none, upon which point it is agreed that there is no color present.
In my business, which dealt with color and B/W, color is understood to mean very specific things. The same is true for broadcasting, physics, etc. It's not considered to be semantics, it's the definition
Before you agreed it was about semantics, now you're saying it's not? (just an example here)
I don't think it matters that much, but I'm pointing out that you're writing several paragraphs in an objection to a single misused word: "though they are limited to 16-color grayscale." I don't understand why you're getting so verbose about one poorly chosen word. Your objection was unnecessary in the first place, the original statement was clear that it was a gray scale device.
Before you agreed it was about semantics, now you're saying it's not? (just an example here)
I was saying that you two are using semantics to say it doesn't matter. I'm saying that semantics doesn't enter into it, that there are definitions and undertandings about this. I didn't agree that it was about semantics, I said they you were playing that game. I didn't bring it up, as I pointed out Caliminius brought it up.
I don't think it matters that much, I'm just pointing out that you're writing several paragraphs in an objection to a single misused word: "though they are limited to 16-color grayscale." I don't understand why you're getting so verbose about one poorly chosen word. Your objection was unnecessary, the original statement was already clear that it was grayscale.
The trouble begins when people use just one word incorrectly, and further misunderstandings cascade down, as people think that it's the correct usage. We should use words correctly, shouldn't we?
I just made one post pointing it out. You are the one expanding this. I was through with it, but you insisted in chastising me for pointing out the error.
I wonder why the corporations don't take the iPhone seriously?
Let's see, no business applications and no push email yet I can read my comics.
Apple has turned the iPhone into an expensive toy through terrible marketing.
When was the last time you saw a commercial for the iPhone even remotely directed towards the business market?
(snip) I'm using push email on my iPhone right now.
You're such a fucking moron. I'm using push email on my iPhone right now.
No personal attacks!
You're such a fucking moron. I'm using push email on my iPhone right now.
Avoid personal attacks in the future.
She's got 'em. I'll have to wrestle them from her tomorrow evening after she comes home from school.
If we can get this thread back to a more positive direction....
Did you lose the wrestling match? ;-)
.
.
It's not the price that holds me back from reading comics, but the format. I don't want a comic that is chock full of ads, that I feel compelled to keep. Digital distribution would be great for this.
If I understand this concept though, I don't think I would bite. I don't need live actors and such for this. That sounds like a waste of time to me.
In fact they are still behind the times in my opinion. They are taking the slow road when it comes to developing comics in this new age of digital comics. If you'd like to see a different take on a motion comic, check out my One Strange Way site.
On the site you'll find a demo and a special feature video. The motion comic contains interactivity, motion graphics, puzzles, voice audio,and background music.
I hope to get One Strange Way on iTunes as a motion comic soon.