
Why we shouldn’t worry about leaving print behind - ernesto95
http://nautil.us/issue/32/space/the-deep-space-of-digital-reading
======
noam87
Digital won't replace print just as the radio and TV didn't replace print (and
interactive didn't replace passive, and print didn't replace the spoken word).
They are wholly different ways to interact with information, each better
suited for different tasks.

I'm 28 years old, and I buy all my books in print form. There is something
about learning from a physical object (with volume, texture, scent) that makes
things "click" better. I remember "where", within some textbook I read half a
decade ago, some topic is explained. A literal, physical "where": a page,
somewhere in the middle of a physical stack of bound paper, which I can touch
and feel; I might event remember where I was when I studied the subject; maybe
I jotted some note on the margin, maybe I spilled tea on the pages before,
giving that "where" its own unique texture and colour, all of which my brain
will forever associate with that information. Digital can't do any of that.

There is nothing left to improve about the physical book.

Of course, if my physical book confuses me, because perhaps it was written by
a certain man named Spivak, who does not like to explain what happens in
between those little "=" symbols, I can't press on anything and expect it to
expand magically and reveal more detail. It's at this point that I will turn
to my laptop, and search for more information, maybe even ask a stranger half
a world away, or watch an interactive video. My copy of "Calculus on
Manifolds" can't do any of that.

I also still find that the best way to solve a problem (even a programming
problem), is on pen and paper. Physically jotting down an idea beats pressing
buttons while staring at an obnoxious, headache-inducing glowing screen any
time (which I try to avoid as much as possible, even as a software developer).
To me flipping still beats searching and clicking, and pen and paper still
beat Google calendar, or whatever todo-app-of-the-week.

The best technology is invisible and gets out of the way. We are physical
animals, and technology is best when it assists and enhances our physical
world, not when it tries to be a shoddy substitute for it.

~~~
ktamura
I am around your age, and while I _personally_ agree with you, I am also not
sure about people that are born now: my friends' kids are playing with iPads
and Android tablets (honestly, more iPads) just like I was playing with
picture books, and looking at them interact with these digital devices, I have
the suspicion that their generation will have a completely different
relationship with digital devices for reading and beyond.

Of course, they are also given books in print and interact with them as well,
but I feel that the verdict is still out there about how that generation will
feel about print when they are our age.

That's a long-winded way of saying that neither of us is young anymore, and we
_might_ be on our way to be less indicative of the future and more reminiscent
of the past (Just _maybe_).

~~~
noam87
My hope at least, is that this is a transitory phase. Once AI gets good enough
at interpreting voice commands, handwriting, and physical gestures, there will
be less and less of a need to interact with the ugly glowing screen. Hopefully
with the next generation of sensors, projectors and materials, and AI, the
digital will just get out of the way and assist when needed (or seamlessly
blend with the physical world).

Immersive tech is cool, but invisible tech is even cooler. Wouldn't it be cool
if you could manage your AWS instances from a beautiful garden out in the
country, using nothing but your voice and some gestures and without having to
look at a clunky old laptop (maybe a small notebook-like pad of e-ink, or
perhaps an image projected from your watch).

Or when James Joyce uses a big word on your physical copy, you can just point
at it and hear the definition. Or when writing down notes on your notebook,
with pen and paper, your Google watch can instantly recognize an event and set
an alarm.

 _That 's_ the future I want to live in. In some ways, that's the world the
first technologists envisioned: one in which technology does the dreadful _for
us_ , not a world in which we're glued onto a screen consuming ads and
producing clickbait 24/7.

------
theseatoms
Slightly off-topic: Print is still far and away the best medium for archiving
information for future generations.

~~~
freehunter
Although paper, especially the paper commonly used in newsprint, is terrible
for it. Ever try to archive newspapers without taking extra steps to preserve
them? It's gone in a decade or two. Long-term archiving is a problem no matter
what the medium.

~~~
dear
I have books and newspaper from decades ago. They are still fine. No special
treatment.

~~~
freehunter
Some newsprint may last longer than others, but in general, newspapers turn
yellow and become brittle after a fairly short period of time. That's why the
US Constitution is stored in such an elaborate way, and why big libraries tend
to have important and old papers/books stores in a secure vault, and keep
newspaper archives on micro film. The Smithsonian has instructions on how to
preserve newspaper, and reasons why it deteriorates so quickly:
[http://siarchives.si.edu/services/forums/collections-care-
gu...](http://siarchives.si.edu/services/forums/collections-care-guidelines-
resources/how-do-i-preserve-my-newspaper)

I saved some papers from 9/11 in a shoebox in a closet, and when I opened it
10 years later, some of the papers crumbled in my hands. Paper of any kind is
fragile and easily damaged by humidity, weather, and fire. We give books and
newspaper special treatment every day they're kept safe in our climate-
controlled houses. If civilization came crashing down, these archives would be
lost very quickly.

------
rjeli
With the recent incensed discussion of Python 2 vs. 3, I thought this would be
about the `print` statement.

------
colmvp
I'll say that I prefer buying physical books whereby the medium suits the
matter. Incredible visuals like traditional art, design, and photography just
aren't the same on an iPad. Technical information is easier to skim, note, and
browse in paper format. But the vast majority of books I read on a weekly
basis such as non-fiction, psychology, and philosophy is just flat out better
with my Kindle.

I love that I can carry a library of books in my bag with a fraction of the
weight. I can also quickly sample and potentially purchase a book on a whim
without having to leave my home or wait for a delivery. I can switch between
books or magazines in a cinch. I don't need to recycle old magazines and
instead just rely on the next issue of the New Yorker magically showing up on
my device. And most importantly, the space saved in my physical home is
invaluable.

------
iss
I find this discussion fascinating. I'm an avid reader and until 4 years ago I
wouldn't trade a physical book for a digital one. Still today, I have this
romantic vision of a personal library with an eclectic book collection. But
then, I bought my first kindle and things changed. Since 2012, I bought over
150 books, read half of those and if anything, the kindle made me read even
more. Besides, I really believe that digital books are also democratising the
access to knowledge and information. I'm based in Portugal and to buy the 150
books I mentioned above I would have to spend more than double the amount I
ended up spending. Why? Because I would need to order them from USA and
transport it's still very expensive.

