next »

[hokusai]

Hello all

In this topic thread I propose firstly to set down the way Illumination arose and when, and also to compare it with Adobe's PDF.

-----------------------------------------

In 1987 I was day-trading commodities and futures on the Zurich market for a Swiss millionaire, Hans Willi, using Apple computers at his home in Passfield, Hants, England.   I wrote two programs for doing this, both of which were highly successful in making steady day-by-day, weekly and monthly profits on the two million or so dollars I was trading on his behalf.   (I should add that making profits in these markets is childishly easy, by which I mean that a reasonably bright thirteen-year-old could both do it and understand what (s)he was doing).

[ Yes yes, I'll be happy to tell you how if you insist and if  Wayan deems it appropriate. ]

At all events, this occupation took up roughly twenty minutes in the morning and another twenty in the afternoon. plus an occasional glance at the screen to see if a buy or sell signal had arisen.   So I was sitting on my thumbs most of the day, especially since Hans had provided me with a secretary to do the really hard work like writing down what we'd done and making an occasional cup of tea/coffee [ Hello, Michelle?   It was dead boring, wasn't it? ]

I had also bought a PC of my own (why not another Apple?  Well, because at that particular time Pcs had colour screens and Apple's tended to be green-on-black, at lest I think that was the reason.)

It occurred to me, over several cups of Michelle's coffee, that one ought to be able to write, illustrate and read a book on a PC screen, and that if so, such a book would be pretty cheap, right?

Now I had a word processor, and a rather primitive drawing program which used the mouse, so I could produce illustrated pages on the PC and save them I forget how and in what form; but of course if I wanted to look at one of them again --- I had drawn a rather fetching picture for Toad Of Toad Hall , for instance --- I had to go into the relevant directory (using Windows 286 I expect) and click on its name.

This, I thought, didn't really amount to having a book on a PC.   So I sat around and thought about how to create such a book.

The first thing I thought was that the pictorial files I'd saved out of Windows looked damn big for what they contained.  EGA, I thought, that was 640 x 350 dots, each in one of 64 colours, so that was, let's see, 6 bits per dot times 224,000  or 168Kb for an entire screen full of dots, but I could see that we must be able to do a lot better than that. 

And we'd need to, because all I had to store a book on would be a  3.5" diskette --- well, ok, we had 5.25 inch ones too, but not many PCs had the necessary drives.  No, 3.5" diskettes it was.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, here, that I had the enormous advantage of never having been
taught programming by anyone and thus not having any preconceptions
about it.    I'd learned DOS from "USING PCDOS" by Chris Devoney
and was just slogging through "THE BIG RED BOOK OF C" by Kevin
Sullivan (both are still in my bookcase).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I just went ahead and did it.  I cut down the 64 colours to 16 per screen because that seemed to be enough to produce a reasonable effect, fine for monochrome photos and fairly simple illustrations a bit like stained glass sometimes, I thought, or maybe an illuminated manuscript . . .  hence the name.

I wrote a program for creating a text-and-pictorial screen, a program for assembling a collection of such screens into a book where you just pressed <PgDN> and <PgUP> to turn a page forward or back, plus a few other bits and pieces like trolleying up and down a contents list, and so forth, and another smaller program for reading such a book, and that was that.   Took me two years, okay, because I was learning C as I went along.

But it worked.   And it never even occurred to me.not for an instant, to use Windows.

For which I now give thanks on bended knee, of course.

I wrote my first complete Illumination book in 1989 and showed it to a collection of mates, who all said Wow ! and we jointly formed Illumination Publishing, and we published another twenty books, all on diskettes, and waited for the world to give us a million quid to start the Electronic Publishing industry, which was pretty well bound to give umpteen million quid back, well, obviously it would, wouldn't it?   

Books which cost the price of a diskette instead of all that paper and ink and printing and binding and warehousing?   And guessing how many copies you needed to print instead of just waiting for the orders and then running the necessary copies off?  Not to mention shipping the dam things, I mean, come on?

Er, except, No.   Didn't happen.   We were told, several dozen times and with massive authority, that "nobody would ever want to read anything off the screen" (never mind that every single person who has ever looked at A MID-SUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, illustrated by David Pinnell ( hello Dave ) has instantly said 'bloody hell that's amazing, can I have one?' ---- and that, folks, was that, and it has remained that for the next, let's see, twenty years?

Oh, wait. The IBM Corporation (no less) were sufficiently impressed by 'A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM' to commission a brochure from us on their spares and repairs service.   They were quite pleased with it, too, and we all spent the profits on a night out in the local pub.

But there (as they say) the matter rests at present.

=========================================


Next post :  Why and how Illumination differs from PDF.


For now, cheers,

Martin

[bowerbird]

why do a comparison with .pdf?

you are correct that a .pdf viewer will not be realized within
the minimal amount of energy you require of your machine.

so there's no need to cover this topic, as far as i can see...

-bowerbird

[hokusai]

Hi bowerbird

well, my intention in making this comparison is not to disparage .PDF in any way,
but to make the following points:-

--------



SGML ===> HTML arose, as a page formatting system, out of the needs of the mainframe world.  It tells you what needs to be put on the screen and where, but not how; every hardware and software system supplies its own implementation for displaying such a file.

PDF ===> the Page Description File, arose out of the similar need to accommodate the concerns of the world of print and translate them onto the screen.   We can easily see that this is so because at least half of the PDF documents we view on screen (I should think) are in fact A4  in format and hence need either scrolling or reduction in size to be read properly.

Given this purpose, it's of course hardly surprising, given the already common use of MicroSoft word processing and drawing programs, that Adobe chose to use Windows as part of PDF.


Illumination, quite differently and significantly, was designed from the outset to handle the PC screen and nothing but that screen, either as EGA 640 x 350 or VGA 640 x 480 pixels.

This is one of the reasons for the Illumination Reader's being compact, fast and low in power consumption --- it doesn't have to do a whole of translation and reformatting of the data it's handling because that data has already been stored in a fashion which exactly matches its target display.

Its disadvantage, here, is that Illumination needs to be 'rewritten' --- even if not extensively --- if it moves from one screen resolution to another. 

Also, because it's largely bitmap oriented whereas HTML and PDF are largely vector in nature, it needs (for instance) a separate font for every point size it uses in the same typeface.

None of this is fatal to Illumination, of course: far from it.   It is, on the contrary, what puts the system so far ahead of others "out there in the world".  But it does make it advisable to pick --- for instance -- a screen size and resolution for the Lightbook from the outset, and to stick with those dimensions for as long as it's expected that an Illumination file will need to be read.

Hence the firm linkage of the Lightbook and Illumination, which some have --- not unreasonably --- found unusual, thus far.


Cheers,

Martin

[bowerbird]

martin-

what shows is your inexperience in e-book design philosophy,
which ramifies into the very foundations of your file-format...

most people consider _reflowability_ to be a vitally important
characteristic of electronic-books.  they also consider that
the ability of a human reader to _resize_ the text is a _given_.

while i'm not saying that you _must_ put reflow-and-resizing
into your package -- since you will have a fixed-size screen,
you might sacrifice it -- but you must tell people if it's absent;
it might not be a deal-breaker, but it is something which they
_must_ be informed about, so they factor it in the equation...

this is only _one_ of many things that will trip you up, and
it's only due to my long history of experience with e-books
that i can see all your gotchas, so i'm not _criticizing_ you.
i think you have a good idea, and i would like to see it work.

-bowerbird

[hokusai]

bowerbird

"what shows is your inexperience in e-book design philosophy,
which ramifies into the very foundations of your file-format...

most people consider _reflowability_ to be a vitally important
characteristic of electronic-books.  they also consider that
the ability of a human reader to _resize_ the text is a _given_."

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating.

You have not the faintest idea whether or not most people consider reflowability to be vitally important.
What you mean is that you happen to think it's important. 
Which, while (mildly) interesting, has nothing whatever to do with the price of hay.

The same goes for your opinions upon my inexperience or otherwise in,
quote-unquote, "e-book design philosophy."

Do leave off, there's a good person.

Cheers, Martin

[Ben James Ben]

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating.

  I thought that this line was especially funny since "pontificating" seems to describe what you have been doing, Martin, regarding Illumination. Not that pontificating is necessarily a bad thing-- everybody has an opinion.

The ability to reflow is important-- in some cases. PDF suffers from the same "problem" as Illumination in this regard, but then again PDF was specifically designed to display document layouts exactly as the author intended, regardless of the end device and regardless of how the reader wants them displayed. That's why I don't believe that PDF or Illumination is the best format for distributing ebooks (though as an end display format, both are fine).

I think that most readers will want to have control over the final visual layout of the ebooks they read. I might be happy reading a 640x480 Illumination book on a Lightbook device, but I also want to be able to take the same book, upload it on my computer with a bigger display, and read it with different fonts and layouts. I can see myself buying an Illumination book and accepting its disadvantages-- if the price is right. However, I also see myself more willing to buy a book in a better file format at a higher price.

[hokusai]

Hello bjb

'Not that pontificating is necessarily a bad thing-- everybody has an opinion.'

But not everybody announces it as "everybody else's", or "most people's" opinion, or that "everybody knows that . . ."  in the absence of any evidence whatever that this is so.  And not everybody explains, discourteously, that to hold a different view implies ignorance, inexperience and lack of thought.   See what I mean by pontificating?  Means, 'behaving like a pontiff '.

At all events, I can now email you (or anyone else) an Illumination book --- THE INVENTOR, by Cynthia Gurin --- which you can read on your PC's rather different screen, if you like and if you care to give me an email address to send it to.

But I'm afraid you'll have to take its display as-is; I have explained why --- I hope, without pontificating, unless describing what Illumination can and cannot do counts as pontificating.

Cheers,  Martin

[bowerbird]

martin said:
>   I really do wish you'd stop pontificating.

wow.

up to this point, you'd been very good about recognizing
that what i'm doing is offering you constructive criticism...

then you come up with "pontificating"...


>   You have not the faintest idea whether or not
>   most people consider reflowability to be vitally important.

well, um, _yeah_, actually i _do_ have "the faintest idea".
i have quite an extremely solid idea that this is the case...

because when you are intensely curious about something
for two-and-a-half _decades_ -- on a _continuous_ basis,
not just back then and now -- you will learn stuff about it...


>   What you mean is that you happen to think it's important.

well, _yeah_, it's true that _i_ "happen to think it's important".

because that is what i have heard so many people saying,
over the course of the last 25 years.

and when people use an e-book format that doesn't reflow,
like .pdf, on a screensize other than the one it was made for,
they complain -- often loudly and bitterly -- about the _awful_
nature of the experience.

and furthermore, when these people use an e-book format
that doesn't let them _resize_ the text, they'll often complain
-- again, loudly and bitterly -- about _that_ constraint as well.

i've also learned -- from those 2.5 decades of experience --
that no matter _how_big_ you make the "default" font-size,
it still won't be big enough for some visually-impared people,
people who will size the type at 96-points if they can do so.
(and furthermore, a certain percentage of the other people
will become irritated by a default font-size that's too large,
because it will appear "childish" to them.)  so you can't win.


>   quote-unquote, "e-book design philosophy."

if you don't think there is a philosophy of design of e-books,
then your ignorance is _willful_.

for those who aren't afraid to look at what's come before,
and who might want to consider what _i_ believe to be
important in the realm of creating an electronic-book, see:
>   http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=2004&post=2004-01-08,3

that post, from 2004, is chock full of "e-book design philosophy".

and, surprise surprise, look at the first few items on the list:
>   windowing and page-display
>   let the user resize the window at will, rewrapping text accordingly.
>   let the user specify a 1-page or a 2-page "spread" layout.
>   let the user specify a 1-page layout with a "workspace" next to it.
>   let the user specify the background color of the window.
>
>   text specification and layout
>   let the user change the size of the text.
>   let the user choose the font.
>   let the user specify the text color.
>   let the user adjust the leading (the spacing between the lines).
>   let the user toggle the horizontal justification of lines.
>   let the user toggle vertical justification (page balancing).
>   let the user toggle widow/orphan control.

that's right, we've got reflow and text-resizing at the very top,
the first items in the first two categories.

(and, ironically, it's that very same "e-book design philosophy"
that says you are _correct_, martin, in your estimation that
_paging_ is a better methodology than _scrolling_.  but i guess
if you throw the whole discipline out the window, then you have
no basis on which to say that, except "that's the way i like it"...)

***

now, having said all that, design is often a matter of compromise.

as ben put it:
>   I can see myself buying an Illumination book and
>   accepting its disadvantages-- if the price is right.
>   However, I also see myself more willing to
>   buy a book in a better file format at a higher price.

precisely.

if you give people a $20 machine, or even a $50 machine,
they might well be willing to accept some disadvantages...

and that's why i said earlier that "i'm not telling you that you
_must_ support reflow and resizing".  there have long been
schools of thought that an image-based format that trades
off reflow and resizing in exchange for cheaper hardware
would be a deal that people are willing to make.  (the most
vocal of such proponents has been a man named jon jermey.)

but if you're gonna say "e-books", then you need to know
what that means in the heads of your audience, and if you
are straightforward with them, you won't let misconceptions
linger there.  if you want them to make a certain trade-off,
then be up-front with them about it.

to treat reflow and resizing as matters that are unimportant
is to be dishonest with the people you are trying to convince.

***

anyway, since you feel i've been "discourteous",
i'll just be leaving now.  no use trying to help you
if i can't tell the truth without you calling me rude...

-bowerbird

[pgf]

wow.  i hadn't really picked up on this aspect of "Illumination" before -- the font size is _fixed_???

if so, that's, like, a total non-starter.  i change browser and terminal window font sizes _all_ the time.  i can't imagine buying an electronic reading product that didn't let me do that.

paul
p.s.  have you looked at the top-right corner of these forum pages?  yup.  it's a font-size control.  imagine that!  :-)

[hokusai]

Hello all:

I don't know how many thousand people have read Illumination books but, thus far, not one person has made any comment whatever about the resizing of the text.  In fact the first time I have ever heard the issue mentioned is right here.

See, that's why they're called "e-books" rather than e-[something-else]'s.

Ordinary people have become used, over the decades, to reading book whose text size doesn't alter.

If  because of your youth, age or eyesight, you need a book with large text, you buy (or are given) a book with large text.  As will be --- indeed is ---  the case with  with Illumination books.

Similarly:-    Children's books, by and large, use large typefaces and simple pictures.   Books for adults tend to use smaller fonts and may have very sophisticated illustrations.    It will again --- indeed is ---  be the same with Illumination books.   

They resemble printed books quite closely, and this is not an obvious fault.

It follows, paul, that your statement that "you can't imagine buying an electronic product which didn't allow font resizing" does not leave me trembling with shock and worry; I have a large body of comment on Illumination books which admires them exactly for what they are and, consequently --- meaning, from the evidence I have --- I anticipate no difficulty whatever with attracting further readers.

--------------------------------

I am very far indeed from rejecting all the comments I have received here; many of them are very helpful and I shall be considering them carefully as I proceed with the Lightbook and with Illumination 2.

Do, though, please remember that I am ( forgive me?) actually an e-publisher already.   I do, accordingly, know a tiny amount about what I'm doing.   Doesn't mean I'm always right.  It does mean that if I am told that ---

. . . when people use an e-book format that doesn't reflow,
like .pdf, on a screensize other than the one it was made for,
they complain -- often loudly and bitterly -- about the _awful_
nature of the experience.

and furthermore, when these people use an e-book format
that doesn't let them _resize_ the text, they'll often complain
-- again, loudly and bitterly -- about _that_ constraint as well

--- the politest way (rather than a shorter, indeed one-word, reply) of expressing my reaction is that this has not been my own experience.

And when I am presented with a list of what one particular bunch of people happen to think (as they are entitled) are some desirable attributes of e-reading and am told that this amounts to The Philosophy Of Electronic Publishing, my response is best expressed in the abbreviation

ROFLMAO

Cheers,

Martin

[bowerbird]

well, hey, martin, i'm glad we're back to _laughing_,
instead of whining about people being "discourteous".

so best of luck with your project, and i'll shove off now.

-bowerbird