Web-based ebooks are not designed to be read

I just tried accessing a ebook for the course I’m teaching, and the experience was less than satisfying. We have access to the book through two platforms, ebrary and books 24×7, and the UI on both left a lot to be desired.

(To be clear, the variety of ebook that I’m referring to here is where the book is accessed through a web site, and not downloaded to a reader. Many (most?) of the ebooks we have available through the Library fit into this category.)

ebrary’s web UI makes it very difficult to size and manipulate the actual page. There was a link to download something called the ebrary reader which I’m assuming provides a better UI, but its a Java app (Java? Really?) so that’s not going to happen.

Books 24×7 requires a password over an above our network IP authentication which is a real PITA if you are a first time user. Thankfully, I already had an account and my browser remembered my auth info, so one click and I was in. Books 24×7 doesn’t display the actual page, but sets the image and text all in the same basic HTML. This would be fine if the quality was inline with Instapaper, etc, but it isn’t. And of course I can’t read the content using Instapaper, so reading is painful. Possible, but painful.

In both cases, you could say that technically the information from the book was available online. But to call it an ebook is misleading, as the experience of actually interacting the information is to poor, so much less that using a book.

And I’m not talking about “this doesn’t feel or smell like a book” sentiment. There are aspects to reading a book, to reading a printed page, that people have adapted to the web. Printed or online, the information should easy to navigate, easy to read, and these two platforms are neither.

As librarians, we should expect and demand more.

p.s. Don’t even get me started about trying to link to a chapter or page in the book. Impossibilium!

The plague of web fonts

An example of why I think web fonts are not ready for prime time. Nothing against the IA Summit folks: I could have chosen any one of a million sites using web fonts, but I happened across this one this morning, and had to share. (Click on the image for the full-resolution version.)

The image on the left is the page rendered in Chrome/Win7. The quality of the text rendering is horrible. The heavy aliasing smudges the characters and fills in the negative space, most noticably in the menu bar. The quote text in the middle of the page looks like it was set in some serif version of a Ransom font.

The image on the right is the same page rendered in Safari/iOS. Better, and while there is still to my eye too much aliasing on the type, the text is easier to read than with the Chrome/Win7 version. At least the page doesn’t look broken.

I think I need to spend more time trying to see if there are ways to do web fonts properly. I know that the team here at McGill responsible for our web management system made a special effort to improve the quality of the web fonts used, and the improvement was noticeable (although I’m still not entirely satisfied). Is the problem inherent with web fonts, with the way browsers render web fonts, or with the way they are implemented?

My guess is that the problem is that web fonts look best on Mac OS / iOS, that most web designers are using Macs, and are not bothering to ensure that the technology works on other platforms. This is one of the greatest sins a web designer can make, and reeks of the browser-specific designs of the 1990’s.

As an admirer of fine typography, I want web fonts to work, but it is clear that we are a long way off. I would encourage designers to think carefully before using web fonts in their projects, if only to preserve the readability and overall aesthetic appeal of the Web.