Comments on: PDF conversions for Sony and Gemstar-style readers—and other news on a slightly snowy weekend http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/pdf-conversions-for-sony-and-gemstar-style-readers-and-other-news-on-a-sligthly-snowy-weekend/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:30:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: David Rothman http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/pdf-conversions-for-sony-and-gemstar-style-readers-and-other-news-on-a-sligthly-snowy-weekend/comment-page-1/#comment-310312 David Rothman Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:35:05 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6394#comment-310312 Nice hearing from you, Antonio. I quoted you: "PDF is more than fine, but it has to be optimized for the display sizes of these new ebook readers." Actually PDF isn't so great as an e-book-reading format. It's device-related, whereas it's better if the same file can be used on a variety of devices---a powerful argument for reflowable formats, so that your cell phone can display the same file as your iLiad or desktop. You've more or less said the same thing in more polite language and without mentioning XML-based reflowable alternatives such as the IDPF standard or <a href="http://www.openreader.org" rel="nofollow">OpenReader</a>. Guess which is one of the companies behind the IDPF standard? Adobe. It recognizes the limitations of PDF for reading. While you can use tags to make PDF display better on PDAs, etc., it's extra trouble. Hence you normally to have to bother with side-to-side scrolling, which a reflowable format will eliminate. As for the people at iRex, maker of the iLiad, yes, they are showing much more interest in offering different format choices than is Sony, which only grudgingly included RFT, etc. Thanks, David Nice hearing from you, Antonio.

I quoted you: “PDF is more than fine, but it has to be optimized for the display sizes of these new ebook readers.”

Actually PDF isn’t so great as an e-book-reading format. It’s device-related, whereas it’s better if the same file can be used on a variety of devices—a powerful argument for reflowable formats, so that your cell phone can display the same file as your iLiad or desktop. You’ve more or less said the same thing in more polite language and without mentioning XML-based reflowable alternatives such as the IDPF standard or OpenReader. Guess which is one of the companies behind the IDPF standard? Adobe. It recognizes the limitations of PDF for reading. While you can use tags to make PDF display better on PDAs, etc., it’s extra trouble. Hence you normally to have to bother with side-to-side scrolling, which a reflowable format will eliminate.

As for the people at iRex, maker of the iLiad, yes, they are showing much more interest in offering different format choices than is Sony, which only grudgingly included RFT, etc.

Thanks,
David

]]> By: Antonio Tombolini http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/pdf-conversions-for-sony-and-gemstar-style-readers-and-other-news-on-a-sligthly-snowy-weekend/comment-page-1/#comment-309182 Antonio Tombolini Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:17:09 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6394#comment-309182 David, I don't get your point. Speaking about the iLiad, I know for sure they are fully devoted to implement the more viewers for the more formats available to the reader. Not the same for Sony Reader, as it seems, but you know iTunes-EMI etc., these are really fast-changing times! :-) David, I don’t get your point. Speaking about the iLiad, I know for sure they are fully devoted to implement the more viewers for the more formats available to the reader. Not the same for Sony Reader, as it seems, but you know iTunes-EMI etc., these are really fast-changing times! :-)

]]> By: David Rothman http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/pdf-conversions-for-sony-and-gemstar-style-readers-and-other-news-on-a-sligthly-snowy-weekend/comment-page-1/#comment-308884 David Rothman Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:58:56 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6394#comment-308884 Well, the 70 percent pro-ban figure is pretty impressive. That said, it might be very entertaining for someone to do a blog where students could post the as-it-happened impressions from classes that still allowed laptops. Ideally there'd be surreptitious videos and audios, too--so we could see just what from the instructor elicited such fond reactions as "BS!" (Fantasy warning.) - David Well, the 70 percent pro-ban figure is pretty impressive. That said, it might be very entertaining for someone to do a blog where students could post the as-it-happened impressions from classes that still allowed laptops. Ideally there’d be surreptitious videos and audios, too–so we could see just what from the instructor elicited such fond reactions as “BS!” (Fantasy warning.) – David

]]> By: Brian Carnell http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/pdf-conversions-for-sony-and-gemstar-style-readers-and-other-news-on-a-sligthly-snowy-weekend/comment-page-1/#comment-308714 Brian Carnell Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:02:13 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6394#comment-308714 "On the Post opinion page, in an item I found via the newspaper’s own Google-powered search engine after seeing it in the Mobile Edition, Georgetown law Professor David Cole tells how he improved learning by banishing laptops from his classroom. “…I conducted an anonymous survey of my students after about six weeks—by computer, of course. The results were striking. About 80 percent reported that they are more engaged in class discussion when they are laptop-free. Seventy percent said that, on balance, they liked the no-laptop policy. And perhaps most surprising, 95 percent admitted that they use their laptops in class for ‘purposes other than taking notes, such as surfing the Web, checking e-mail, instant messaging and the like.’ Ninety-eight percent reported seeing fellow students do the same.” Mind you, via blogs and forums and the rest, laptops can contribute to learning, but Cole has a point. Hello, OLPC?" Umm...maybe. However, from personal experience a lot of lecturers vastly overestimate both a) their lecturing capabilities (i.e., they're boring as hell) and b) their accuracy. I can't count the number of times I have IMed a friend sitting four rows away with a link that demonstrates what the lecturer just said is complete BS. And, at least from your excerpt, there is no evidence that the students actually learned more -- just that they paid more attention to the lecturer. Believe me, the two are not the same thing. “On the Post opinion page, in an item I found via the newspaper’s own Google-powered search engine after seeing it in the Mobile Edition, Georgetown law Professor David Cole tells how he improved learning by banishing laptops from his classroom. “…I conducted an anonymous survey of my students after about six weeks—by computer, of course. The results were striking. About 80 percent reported that they are more engaged in class discussion when they are laptop-free. Seventy percent said that, on balance, they liked the no-laptop policy. And perhaps most surprising, 95 percent admitted that they use their laptops in class for ‘purposes other than taking notes, such as surfing the Web, checking e-mail, instant messaging and the like.’ Ninety-eight percent reported seeing fellow students do the same.” Mind you, via blogs and forums and the rest, laptops can contribute to learning, but Cole has a point. Hello, OLPC?”

Umm…maybe.

However, from personal experience a lot of lecturers vastly overestimate both a) their lecturing capabilities (i.e., they’re boring as hell) and b) their accuracy. I can’t count the number of times I have IMed a friend sitting four rows away with a link that demonstrates what the lecturer just said is complete BS.

And, at least from your excerpt, there is no evidence that the students actually learned more — just that they paid more attention to the lecturer. Believe me, the two are not the same thing.

]]> By: David Rothman http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/pdf-conversions-for-sony-and-gemstar-style-readers-and-other-news-on-a-sligthly-snowy-weekend/comment-page-1/#comment-306494 David Rothman Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:02:03 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6394#comment-306494 Good points, of course, Eliot. And of course, as I myself see it, this is yet another argument for the S word---standards. While PDF to HTML conversion, etc., is possible, this is far from an optimal way to go. Thanks. David Good points, of course, Eliot. And of course, as I myself see it, this is yet another argument for the S word—standards. While PDF to HTML conversion, etc., is possible, this is far from an optimal way to go. Thanks. David

]]> By: Eliot Kimber http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/pdf-conversions-for-sony-and-gemstar-style-readers-and-other-news-on-a-sligthly-snowy-weekend/comment-page-1/#comment-306477 Eliot Kimber Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:52:26 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6394#comment-306477 Note that PDFRead tool is only creating page *images*, not extracting the text. In the case of the Sony Reader, this will produce a usable result but in an ideal result. While it is technically possible to do a PDF text-to-text-based Reader book, it is challenging and will usually require some human intervention. Also, Sony does not appear to be making the Reader's input format (BBeB) specs available in the U.S. market, although they did make them available in Japan for their earlier LIbrie product (as far as I know, the input specs are the same for both Librie and Reader). Note that PDFRead tool is only creating page *images*, not extracting the text. In the case of the Sony Reader, this will produce a usable result but in an ideal result. While it is technically possible to do a PDF text-to-text-based Reader book, it is challenging and will usually require some human intervention. Also, Sony does not appear to be making the Reader’s input format (BBeB) specs available in the U.S. market, although they did make them available in Japan for their earlier LIbrie product (as far as I know, the input specs are the same for both Librie and Reader).

]]>