A typographic critique of the Kindle

I bought the Amazon Kindle right when it came out in late 2007. It’s gotten an increasing amount of press since then, culminating in Oprah’s gushing endorsement of it on October 24, 2008. (The NYTimes recently wrote a piece about e-books which attributed their rise in interest, in part, to the sales of the Kindle.) Since Amazon does not release sales numbers for whatever reason (perhaps because they are such a miniscule part of their business) analysts are estimating that there are somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 in circulation at the end of 2008. Anecdotally, I’ve been noticing it more and more in airplanes and airports, and I’ve been hearing reports from random friends that their parents swear by them now.

To be honest, I marveled at the thing when I first got it, mostly because of the Whispernet feature which allows you to download a book on the fly, say, on your way to the subway, rather than stopping by a bookstore or library, (just what I need — more encouragement not to engage in planning ahead) but the visual design of the thing was wholly disappointing, and thus, it began to grow dust, languishing unused next to my bedside reading table. The Kindle had somehow failed to capture the simple aesthetic pleasure of reading.

“Flow State”

Jeff Bezos, in his interview with Charlie Rose about the Kindle, remarked that his team’s number one design objective in the Kindle was to achieve the “flow state” of reading — that is, the ability of the physical object of the book, the paper, the ink, the binding, to disappear when the reader enters the world created by the author’s words.

I am certain it’s easier to get into this “flow state” when you’ve got something in front of you that you really, truly want to read. And on this score, Kindle (and Amazon) should have things pretty much locked up (literally) in their almost infinite catalog of selections from the major publishers. Granted, this probably took a ton of negotiating on the part of Amazon with all of the major publishers for distribution rights, but when you’re Amazon, I’m sure you can pretty much walk into the room with a baseball bat and say, “We’re doing this. You all on board? Great. Sign here.”

Note: There are some technical limitations that are endemic to all ebook readers that use E Ink technology (or at least that I am attributing to limitations in E Ink) that I won’t discuss here, like the supremely annoying black screen when you change pages and the menu and windowing UI (though the new the new Sony PRS-700 has a touch screen interface which is much more elegant).

First, the good parts

Over the holidays, I was in the Charlotte airport, staring down an hour delay in my flight, and I walked by a bookseller where I noticed Niall Ferguson’s new book, The Ascent of Money, which I had forgotten was at the top of my list of books to read over the holidays. I opened the cover and balked when I saw that it was selling for $29.95. Somewhat in price shock, I marched back to my luggage, took out my Kindle, and I downloaded a sample chapter. After reading a few clicks, I was hooked and determined to have it, especially after seeing the Kindle price: $9.99.

Note the price differential (list price of $29.99 and Kindle price of $9.99)

Note the price differential (list price of $29.95 and Kindle price of $9.99)

$29.95 – $9.99 = $19.96.

Which begs the question: What’s that extra $19.96 paying for? In addition to the paper, the ink and printing, the cover material, the binding, and bailing out a floundering publishing industry, I realized that much of it goes into something that may or may not break your flow state: good typography.

Whither Good Typography?

If the web is 95% typography, then e-books are somewhere in the range of 98%. And in my wide and varied research, I think I can safely say that the reason reading long texts on screens hurts so much is that there are very few people who can set type properly anymore (that, and annoying banner ads and vertical scrolling, but we will address these problems in another post). Unfortunately, this is the case with the Kindle as well. The font they’ve chosen for all body text is Caecelia, drawn by Peter Matthias Noordzij. It’s a smart choice, since it’s an Egyptian (slab serif), so you get the advantage of serifs without having to worry about the slope of the foot getting killed at smaller sizes, but the way it’s treated in the Kindle is, well, unfortunate.

Lists

Basic component of HTML rendered rather thoughtlessly by the Kindle:

Kindle tripping over an ordered list

Kindle tripping over an ordered list

Images

The resolution of E Ink technology is purportedly around 300 dpi. In practice, or at least the way the Kindle renders images, it reminds one of the early days of the Palm, or of mezzotint. For instance, this graph below probably has some important labels, but no matter how hard I squint I can’t make out the text. I wonder if this were printed at 300 dpi on a laserprinter if it would be legible. I am sure the crappiness of the image quality is due to the fact that with E Ink you have only black or white “pixel” molecules with which to render text or image, and so it doesn’t matter if you have 300 dpi, you still need some levels of grey in order to do proper anti-aliasing and image reproduction. (I bet the image format on the Kindle is BMP.)

Not just a crappy photo; you actually can't read the type in real life

Not just a crappy photo; the type is illegible in real life.

Captions

You would think someone on the Kindle team would have been able to spend a little time to create a style for caption text to differentiate them from the body copy. (The same is true of block quotes — no differentiating style.)  I don’t know if this particular book was rushed through without any styling or what, but in the immortal words of Duke Leto (in the David Lynch version of Dune), “Really damn sloppy!”

Awkward line breaking on centered captions

Awkward line breaking on centered captions

Rivers

It looks like by default, the Kindle likes to justify its pages of text. This gives you an even rag on the right side instead of a ragged, irregular one. The pros and cons of this can be debated. There are two variables that need to be adjusted for justifying wholesale large swaths of text:

  1. Font size
  2. Hyphenation

Without control of these two factors you will certainly have rivers, ie, channels of whitespace running down the paragraphs since whitespace, or more accurately, word spacing, is what is used to justify the lines. Unfortunately, font size can be controlled by the user on the Kindle, so whenever you decide to change the font size, the word spacing changes, and if you don’t have a hyphenation library (which it appears Kindle doesn’t have on board yet) and you get a diluvian horrorshow:

Justification without hyphenation

Justification without hyphenation

So, what happened to the text on the way to the Kindle?

One way to look at these typographic failures is to see them as byproducts of digitization, or to use my favorite analogy, this is what happens when you force atoms into the digital blender. Unfortunately, this is fraught with messiness (as clearly evidenced above) and it’s not clear who is responsible for the cleaning up of the digitizing mess. According to the Newsweek article:

Though Bezos won’t get terribly specific, Amazon itself is also involved in scanning books, many of which it captured as part of its groundbreaking Search Inside the Book program. But most are done by the publishers themselves, at a cost of about $200 for each book converted to digital.

Really? I highly doubt that scanning is part of the process of getting a book on the Kindle. I am pretty sure that most books nowadays begin on the computer (typed by the author on a word processor), then they are laid out by a designer on a computer, so that there is no need for them to make the round trip to print and then back again through a scanner.

Here’s what I think happens: they take the InDesign (or Quark ) file used for the book, export it as XML, and add Kindle-specific markup (this is an image, this is a caption, this is a list, and so on) to turn it into the proprietary AZW format. The semantic structure of books isn’t that complicated. It’s getting them to render nicely at all page-widths, font-sizes, etc. that’s hard.

Final Grade

From a purely visual, typography standpoint, I’d give the Kindle a C+. Good effort, but poor attention to detail. Fortunately many of these details just need some care and adjustment and are not necessarily the result of technical failures, just laziness and poor design judgement.

Next, I’m going to check out the new Sony PRS-700, which has a touch screen and highlighting ability. Stay tuned!

Also, don’t forget to nominate your favorite online read of 2008 here.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

22 Comments

Categories publication design, reading | Tags:

You can follow any follow up comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Comments

  1. Ella Bellicosa | February 17, 2009 at 10:32 am

    For a blog on typography, this page design is unfortunately hard to read. There’s not enough value contrast between the text and background. My usual trick of selecting the text doesn’t work well either, since they show up as blue on white.

  2. Irwin | February 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Ella,

    I’ve taken your comment to heart and have changed the background color. I have found, however, that using #ffffff as a background color and #000000 for text presents too much contrast.

    Also, if you really want to see how we’re thinking about improving the online reading experience, here is where we’re putting all of our efforts:

    The Redub Reader

    -Irwin

  3. Jesse | April 8, 2010 at 4:42 am

    You complain about typography and then use one of the most horrendous typefaces I have ever seen? Really?

    It is ugly and unreadable.

  4. Dan | April 10, 2010 at 5:59 am

    I agree. The first book that I read on my Kindle for formatted in such a way so as to left justify all the text. The text was crisp, and it was a pleasure to read. The second book I attempted to read, which was the next book in the same series, had poor layout and fonts. It looked like the text wasn’t lining up nicely with the pixels, such that characters would have weird thin segments in some places, but would look fine in other places. The text was justified, and it was very distracting. I wonder whether the problem is the Kindle itself, or with the content. Perhaps authors can note the locations where hyphens can appear, but simply fail to do so.

  5. Todd | April 16, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Just a little technical nitpick — the AZW format is not proprietary. It’s simply ePub with DRM that’s similar to bu slightly different from the Mobipocket DRM method (similar enough that once you find the key, you can decrypt AZW using any existing mobipocket decrypter). It sounds like Kindle just has a poor ePub rendering implementation, which is sad since Stanza does a stellar job and Amazon owns them now. Hopefully the Stanza engine (that does lists and tables correctly, does hyphenation, etc) will make its way to Kindle eventually.

  6. wholesale kids socks | May 13, 2010 at 8:11 am

    hi,damn good Ipad in your post,I love thatelegantIpad,I need to find one for me,jane

  7. Tom | August 13, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Well, that was all crap. Full of misinformation. Your criticisms are mostly criticisms of the conversion process that affects all ebooks and ereaders, not just the Kindle.

    A few mistakes:
    - the Kindle has a resolution 167ppi.
    - It also has 16 levels of grey, not ‘black and white’.
    - ‘I bet the image format on the Kindle is BMP.’ – Nope, doesn’t support them.
    - The ‘So, what happened to the text on the way to the Kindle?’ is all conjecture. And wrong; they do scan them.
    - And what the hell are ‘pixel molecules’?

    You make far too many assumptions here, not enough research with nothing to back up your statements apart from your own seemingly misinformed interpretations of ‘good’ typography.

    Cheers,
    Tom

  8. Irwin Chen | August 14, 2010 at 6:32 am

    @Tom,

    It’s true. Most e-readers do a crappy job displaying text. It’s not something you expect from a company like Amazon, though. It’s a technological (algorithmic) problem, sure, but it’s also a problem of caring about typography. Also, someone made a choice (in my opinion, a bad one) to justify all text on the Kindle by default, with no option to run ragged right text. (Kindle 2 seems to have taken note of this and addressed the problem of rivers by limiting the inter-word space to no more than an em width (Macintouch).

    Thanks for the corrections, though. You’re right. The Kindle has a resolution of 167ppi. The first Kindle (which I was referring to) had 4 levels of gray. And the “pixel molecules” I was referring to are the microcapsules (one side black, the other white) that are used in e-ink technology.

    This is why I was skeptical about e-ink’s ability to create true grays, because the only actual colors it has at its disposal are black and white. I believe ereaders “fake” different levels of gray by varying the concentration of these black and white microcapsules.

    They are, however, working on color e-ink displays:

    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/06/blackandwhite_ebooks/

  9. Tom | August 17, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    I apologise for my first rather abrasive post; I wasn’t in the best of moods that day.

    Anyway, I’m sure Amazon care about their typography just as much as anyone else. No doubt they are aware of the importance of getting it right. The choices they made, I think, can’t be down to ‘not caring’. For instance, Amazon wanted their ereader to be as accessible to the general public as possible. Geeks of various disciplines (tech geeks, type geeks, etc) aren’t really in the majority, so when making an accessible device, choices have to be made, and options got rid of. As I’m sure you’re aware, for the majority of cases justified text tends to be the better choice for large amounts of text, nicely leading your eye with the flow, hence why it’s used in most books (remember, emulating books is the Kindle’s biggest goal). While type geeks may know when ragged right text would be preferable, most people don’t. You seemingly being one of those type geeks, I understand why you’d want that ability. But when trying to minimise the complexity of the Kindle, I can see why the developer didn’t offer that function.

    I understand your points, the Kindle’s typography could be a bit better in some cases, but this comes from how the Kindle has to take a generic ebook that could be displayed on a device of any size and attempt to format it on the fly. Real books can get the proper attention paid to them, because it’s known to the editor in charge the final size, so decisions can then be made. But the Kindle has to try to figure this out itself, which obviously isn’t an easy task.

    So trying to figure out solutions to typographical problems on the fly all while trying not to have to involve the user is more likely the source of the errors, as opposed to it being about the developers not caring about typography.

    Personally, taking the issues into account, I think they’ve done a rather good job of it so far, and good things are hopefully to come with the Kindle 3.

    Again, apologies for my first post. I see your points, but I think you’re perhaps being a bit overly critical of the developers and overlooking their struggles.

    Oh and yes, colour e-ink displays are a very exciting prospect, something I personally can’t wait to be introduced.

  10. Paul Wigmore | March 2, 2011 at 11:08 am

    If Amazon ever do get down to the typography, I pray they will plump for Times New Rom. I shan’t buy one until they do.

  11. Marshall Shutter | November 26, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Very effectively written information. It is going to be worthwhile to anyone who usess it, including myself. Sustain the nice work – for certain i’ll take a look at extra posts.

  12. kutasy | January 4, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    I have been surfing online more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all web owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.

Trackbacks

  1. Redub LLC
  2. What the iPad is Missing (No, it’s not a Camera) | The FontFeed
  3. What the iPad Is Missing (No, It’s Not a Camera) | Web Design Cool
  4. What the iPad Is Missing (No, It’s Not a Camera) | Stocks!
  5. iPad Typography – What the iPad is Missing? (No, it’s not a Camera) « Digital Media Arts
  6. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings…But What is an “E-book”? « From Page to Screen
  7. Thad McIlroy – Future Of Publishing » A Harsh Spotlight Falls on Sloppy eBook Conversions
  8. Thad McIlroy – Future Of Publishing » Sloppy eBook Conversions in the Spotlight
  9. Thad McIlroy – Future Of Publishing » Sloppy eBook Conversions in the Spotlight
  10. Quora

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant Redub LLC a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

Redub Tweets

    Popular Posts