Hi Jon,

You might be interested in this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/

Indeed - a good overview of the issues, thanks Shawn. Like all technologies, it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it, and context makes a huge difference. It is not possible to generalize too conclusively because, for any given design (of either paper or electonic books), you could always imagine a different one (e.g I have possible solutions to some of the issues). 

Both the electronic technologies themselves and our abilities to deal with them are rapidly evolving - in fact, that's part of the problem, because we keep having to learn new ways of reading - while paper books have, for the most part, changed little in several hundred years and there are only a relatively few limited ways our use of one differs from our use of another. E-texts are far less limited, which is both a blessing and a curse. At the very least, it makes comparisons meaningless. For instance (just to take a couple of very trivial examples) the same ebook could be read on an old cellphone or an e-ink display or an iPad or a new smartphone, or could be presented as a DRM-limited PDF on a computer screen or an open e-pub book on a Kindle Paperwhite. These are radically different experiences, far greater than those between a badly typeset, fuzzily printed book on straw paper and a coffee-table book created by a designer.  I think it is fairly clear that, in the grand scheme of things, e-texts have a massive edge that will only increase, for most but not all uses. Paper books will not ever vanish, but are diminishing in importance very rapidly. But we are still at a phase where the benefits and disadvantages are in balance. For some uses and ways of reading or learning, e-texts are better, for some, p-texts rule. And it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. We can learn why and how p-texts can be better, and we can adapt e-texts to work better. It is much harder the other way round.

In part, I think, it is a transitional issue. We have not quite got the hang of either creating or reading e-books yet, any more than creators of the first folios quite understood how they differed from scrolls. Our best current solutions tend to be skeumorphic, like horseless carriages. I do absolutely agree that the physicality of traditional books is a very important thing - my physical bookshelf is way more salient than my virtual one, though both contain similar numbers of books (I got rid of many thousands of paper books a while back!). It helps me to remember simply by glancing at the shelf. On the other hand, I find it quite frustrating that I cannot do a full text search on those books, or transfer notes to a repository I can access anywhere, or share my notes with others, or change the display to suit my eyes or the time of day, or have them read to me. E-books change the rules of cognition - they are not just simple substitutes that perform the same cognitive role.

In part, the value of paper books occurs because we continue to write as though for paper, without taking enough advantage of the new possibilities. For most of us, it is deeply ingrained that writing is something that occurs on paper and that is how we think of the process. Indeed, for many people of my generation, writing with a pen and paper remains the norm. Which raises the interesting issue that medium and message are deeply intertwingled. At least in my experience, writing with a pen is very different from writing with a typewriter, which is very different again from writing with a word processor. But all of these media work on the assumption that the end result is a piece of paper, virtual or otherwise. Writing for paper is very different from, say, writing for a website. When we finally figure out things like how to write 'books' that take proper advantage of multimedia, that are adaptive/adaptable and remixable, that apply what we know about memory and cognition to make their contents more easily memorable, that are native to the medium, I think paper books will feel as quaint as writing with a quill. But, for now, that's not how it is. The jury is and must remain out, because the game has only just begun.

It seems to me that, where e-books and p-books are genuinely equivalent, it is incredibly simple to choose one or the other. Publication on demand is dead simple and very cheap. The only obstacles are legal (and that's a massive problem that we have to solve - many publishers are fighting to retain control that they no longer deserve).

I wrote a comparison of the benefits and weaknesses of each last year that I should probably turn into a paper at some point, if I can find the time to write a proper literature review.

I have just been reading a newspaper article which shows the adverse effects of reading ussing tech gadgets like iphone, ipads etc. The author points out that there is "an increased risk of early myopia (short-sightedness) and computer vision syndrome in children who are heavy computer and smart phone users". The rest of the article can be found on this link: http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Screens-dimming-eyes-of-young-users/-/440808/1856504/-/5h37dx/-/index.html

- charles mungo

An interesting article, though the fact that it is filed under 'opinion' in the newspaper in question is a clue that it may not be a definitive piece! The article cites no sources and uses a lot of the 'danger flag' words that calls into question its validity like 'researchers have unanimously agreed...'. I'm highly sceptical of its conclusions, especially given the job of its author.

I'd be interested to read of any unambiguous or non-anecdotal evidence of a relationship between screen use in children and propensity to develop myopia, or at least an effect greater than that from reading a book or sewing (e.g. see Seang-Mei Saw, Wei-Han Chua, Ching-Ye Hong et al. Nearwork in Early-Onset Myopia. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2002; 43: 332–339). There are certainly some short-term effects and some issues with muscular fatigue etc (e.g. MARUMOTO, T., JONAI, H., VILLANUEVA, M. B. G., SOTOYAMA, M., & SAITO, S. (2003). A Case Report of Ophthalmologic Problems Associated with the Use of Information Technology among Young Students in Japan. InProceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, August (pp. 24-29).), so taking a regular break as the article suggests is a very good idea if you want to avoid those. 

Myopia and other ocular problems are indeed on the increase and seem to particularly affect those in cultures where high educational achievement is expected of children from an early age (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1123161/) and this might well be a cause of the alleged correlation. One main factor that seems to count is exposure to daylight - e.g. see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130501101258.htm - which may on average be lower among children who spend a lot of time reading, whether on screen or not.

Any activity that we do a lot of the time will have observable physiological and psychological effects, but we must be wary of drawing strong conclusions from anecdotal 'common sense' data and look deeper into the reasons behind it, and consequences of it. The fact that people may spend more time looking at screens than they might for less engaging technologies like print may be an issue that could have further consequences.

Jon

Hi James,

Thank you for the insightful comment, which pretty much is line with what I said (obviously no so clear). The weight I was referring to, and as you confirmed, is achieved through my friend's activities; My point here is that many of my friends will engage into tempting offers, hence push them to me (a simplified example). I did not account for the strangers at all.

Time-decay will be achieved through continuous updates of the "game" status(es), not the comments, something like refreshing the whole news (at least this is how I see this possibility open to use), thus in a sense creating a new one.

As for the "free Internet", I am aware that not all services can be free (and should not be), especially with emerging cloud technologies, but I was referring to achieving an Utopian equalization through real quality versus financial power. I believe that social networks can alleviate this existing dark cloud already spanning across all major media. My fear is that the potential Facebook "news feed" will not reflect some small and medium businesses delivering quality products/services, but those who can invest significant financial resources.

Once again, I appreciate the chance to explain my thoughts better!

Cheers,

Sasha

Facebook EdgeRank from what I can read and see here looks to me as a cool idea that help attract users to Facebook, the algorithms use here tends to save a typical user time and hide unimportant stories and discussions from user’s newsfeed. This algorithm will help filter only relevant stories user wants to see in their newsfeed rather than having lots of newsfeeds that are outdated, uneventful and boring to them. This is a remarkable achievement in social networking as this helps decide what content appears in newsfeed for the user, making social networking a refreshing experience rather than getting bored with old stories that are uneventful. You can now follow content from most companies that deal with your favorite brand or stock market situation as it happens. Get the latest and important news about your favorite brand of products. These are all good news to Facebook users.

The three EdgeRank algorithms use which includes affinity, weight and time decay help user determine what they see from newsfeed. Affinity helps with the frequency of your writing on someone’s Facebook wall and other explicit actions such as clicking, liking, commenting, tagging, sharing and friending to determine the newsfeed that user will see. Affinity will measure actions of both sender and the receiver of the feeds. As for your favorite brand, the downside is that the companies are not able to check their Edgerank score or position, this may not encourage some of these companies to advertise their product on Facebook, because they are not getting feedback about how they are doing with users or customers.

From statistic, users spent so much time looking for latest information on Facebook about their favorite brands or particular newsfeed, but with Edgerank weight, it helps reflect on the type of stories they think user will find most engaging. This ranks comments and sharing higher than “likes” since this requires more actions on the user’s part. This helps filter boring stories and encourage patronage.

The time decay help maintain the freshness of the newsfeed you get, but you may still get old and boring news if you do not logon to your Facebook page account regularly, just like me(smile…). The time decay factor measures the age of your content.

With Edgerank factors in place, as an organization that is ready and willing to embrace this new idea, the important point is that your content has to lead your audience to a purchase point if you want to drive your sales as a company; otherwise your goal of driving up sales using Facebook might be far from reality. Developing leads and prospect for your product, you need a strong call-to-action to persuade people and get them to register or download some content that can give you that edge over your adversaries. With this in mind, your shareholder will be happy with your strategy and you can use this medium to improve your organization earnings. I think organization can take advantage of this social networking idea to promote their product and get more users to get the latest products.

Fruit And Vegetable Cleaning Machine Brush Cleaning Machine https://www.vegmachinefactory.com/fruit-and-vegetable-cleaning-machine-brush-cleaning-machine.html Fruit And Vegetable Cleaning Machine Brush Cleaning Machine
Industrial Belt Type Microwave Drying Machine For Saussurea Involucrata https://www.vegmachinefactory.com/industrial-belt-type-microwave-drying-machine-for-saussurea-involucrata.html
- Industrial Belt Type Microwave Drying Machine For Saussurea Involucrata

This is really interesting Jon. I have implemented a form of 'forced reflection' in my classes, not really understanding the 'why' other than I felt some tacit (gut feeling) that it was worthwhile. It is a time when mobile phones are ignored and students are given time to write reflections on the week's work (similar to the reading time many schools embrace). This study helps to explain why this may be a worthy activity. Thanks!

I had posted a link an FB (actually it was to http://news-centre.uwinnipeg.ca/all-posts/study-supports-theory-on-teen-texting-and-shallow-thought/ ) but same story.

I wanted to share two comments on my posting:

• one was simply a rhetorical (I think) question concerning whether texting makes you shallow, or whether shallowness makes you text more
• the other was whether the study had any meaning in the context of deaf people (the commenter has a deaf son) since they are heavy users of texting.

With respect to the second comment - I think not - but it reminded me that tools are not used the same way, nor for the same reason, by different users.

one was simply a rhetorical (I think) question concerning whether texting makes you shallow, or whether shallowness makes you text more

I totally agree with the above theory, that should be researched in a following study.

Glassy-eyed 'let's change the world' types like Ferreira make me physically queasy. Perhaps I just fear (or resent) their ruthless efficiency and effectiveness. God help us all.

It seems to me the $1m question lies between the terms 'adaptive' and 'adaptable'. If the user's in charge (as in the latter case) I can stomach any suggestions a cyborg might make. Why not? As JD says I can always ignore them (although, in practice, how many would actually do that?)

An anecdote to illustrate: I went on Amazon the other day to look for some relatively obscure classical CDs. I had a handwritten list of discs I wanted to research, possibly buy. When I logged in the top three recommendations from Amazon were exactly the titles that headed my back-of-a-napkin list. This was the result of no previous search I'd made on these specific titles. Just algorithms, assessing - with ruthless accuracy - my preferences based on previous browsings.

Efficiency? Convenience? Or a world we don't want to live in? Here's the point: What about the titles I might have found by chance if I'd had to search for myself?

And, at an upcoming concert, I'll be finding myself talking to fellow enthusiasts who have exactly the same recordings. A bland world - ripe for exploitation by the unscrupulous. Freire would be revolving at CD-speed in his grave (as would Neil Postman and numerous others).

I think this is the point JD is making (very effectively in my view) about Knewton. The take-home? Adaptive - beware. Adaptable - ok (maybe) if you must. Possibly good. Still thinking...

Thanks for a great post.

Thanks Bruno

This is indeed dangerous territory. I recommend Eli Pariser's Filter Bubble (site links to the book from various resellers as well as other related presentations and resources). It's one of the more balanced and readable variants on the theme from someone who is quite familiar with what is happening under the hood as well as the broader systemic issues. 

I think that adaptable plus adaptive, such as Amazon's recommendations, is not a bad way to go, as long as it still allows for serendipity, doesn't actively stop you from searching further, and is not the only channel that you use. Adaptable adaptivity is better. I am fond of Judy Kay's concept of scrutable adaptation, and similar ideas underpin much of my work in the area. However, as her own work and the explicit collaborative filters used on Amazon (where you can shape your recommendations more carefully) show, it is very hard indeed to get the right balance of control and ease of use. For my PhD I invented a system that solves the problem in almost every way apart from the minor inconvenience that it is virtually unusable so the effort outweighs the benefits.

Nothing much beats a real, knowledgable human being to help guide your learning journey/journey of discovery, but it is very hard to both find the right human(s) and to deal with the cost, errors and inefficiencies that inevitably arise. Tools like Knewton and Amazon, and for that matter Google Search, are powerful and effective, leveraging the wisdom of the crowd pretty well, putting aside problems like  the Matthew Effect and preferential attachment for now. I think that filter bubbles are here to stay and they are going to get bigger so, though we should try to curb their wilder excesses, we must learn to live with them and learn to fool them into not fooling us.

Jon