Instructions: Paper vs. Digital

[aol000xw]

While PDF will be available for a long long time, digital obsolescence is real. So any proprietary digital format can easily be outlived by paper instructions

Kind of like PF might outlive C+...

 

[MAB]

Paper, because their digitial instructions are still terrible when it comes to colour.

I don't really see it as an environmental problem either, at least for owned sets. Although if they do want to cut back on paper, then they could make the steps slightly harder / involve more pieces per step so that there are less steps per model and also make boxes smaller.

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

2 hours ago, aol000xw said:

Kind of like PF might outlive C+...

Don't tempt me with false hope! 

4 hours ago, coinoperator said:

Is it not worse enough with all that autisme generating electronic junk?

Autism has nothing to do with devices (or vaccines, for that matter); it's a genetic neurological condition that existed long before electronic devices.

You should be ashamed of yourself. 

[suffocation]

TLG should print much larger instructions broken down into many, many more steps so as to use at least a hundred times more paper, sourced from Pennantia baylisiana exclusively, in order to revitalise the ailing paper industry. All paper should be non-recyclable.

TLG should also replace all that toxic ink with environmentally friendly seal pub blood.

Finally, TLG should charge customers an extra fee based on their gullibility.

[coinoperator]

28 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

Autism has nothing to do with devices

Worse.
It a known FACT

[Lasse D]

13 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

No.  Not correct at all.  Without going into specifics or being too technical, paper does not affect the eyes the same way digital imaging does.  Reflecting light is much different than emitting or creating light.  Color-responding neurons see and know the differences and respond differently.  Such information is also sent to different parts of the brain and traveled through different pathways. 

That's very interesting. I looked into this topic before I made my post and followed the citations provided here: https://www.news-medical.net/health/Does-looking-at-a-computer-damage-your-eyes.aspx

The problems stated there all seem to be caused by sustained close-up visual activity, which would not be relevant here as you would be performing frequent changes in focus as you change from screen to the physical pieces. This was what I used to support my argument that with modern screens your eyes would not receive a worse impact than when using paper.

Do you have citations behind how paper affects the eyes differently, and how that can have a negative impact? I know you say it is technical, but I am willing to learn.

[coinoperator]

4 minutes ago, suffocation said:

TLG should print much larger instructions broken down into many, many more steps so as to use at least a hundred times more paper, sourced from Pennantia baylisiana exclusively, in order to revitalise the ailing paper industry. All paper should be non-recyclable.

TLG should also replace all that toxic ink with environmentally friendly seal pub blood.

Finally, TLG should charge customers an extra fee based on their gullibility.

Whawhawhawhaw
You're great.

Shouldn't the manuals be signed in blood by the ceo too?

[suffocation]

Just now, coinoperator said:

Shouldn't the manuals be signed in blood by the ceo too?

No way man, CEOs are the coolest people in the world. But you do raise a good point: CEOs should sign the manuals using their employees' blood, as suggested years ago in Burroughs' "Roosevelt After Inauguration".

[knotian]

MODERATOR - Please move this to somewhere - preferably trash - the trolls are feeding!

[aol000xw]

 

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

Don't tempt me with false hope! 

Autism has nothing to do with devices (or vaccines, for that matter); it's a genetic neurological condition that existed long before electronic devices.

You should be ashamed of yourself. 

It may be wrong but autism is sometimes colloquially used to describe something that has nothing to do with it, like isolation, depression, anxiety, alienation etc. anything that breaks social interaction.

In that regard, wrong word, but known symptoms of social media/electronic devices abuse or misuse.

So yeah I don't see Lego forcing screen use as a positive.

 

[suffocation]

39 minutes ago, knotian said:

MODERATOR - Please move this to somewhere - preferably trash - the trolls are feeding!

Or maybe the "trolls" are sick of seeing random Lego fans pretending to know the ins and outs and whereabouts of carbon footprints, selective synaptic responses and ophthalmology.

[Toastie]

13 minutes ago, suffocation said:

Or maybe the "trolls" are sick of seeing random Lego fans pretending to know the ins and outs and whereabouts of carbon footprints, selective synaptic responses and ophthalmology

Hehee - I like the "Pennantia baylisiana" bit the most - never heard of it before.

Maybe the trolls just want to pep this thread up with little spicy Monty Python type comments? I personally love this very much, it's fun!

Here is another one: When you open a box with lets say a hundred million piece count model, take one of the instruction books, open it somewhere half through, swiftly stick your nose deep into the pages - man that smell - that totally chemical, out of this world, wonderful smell - painting pictures of "new" and "exciting" in my head - ever had that experience? Try that with a greasy cell phone or tablet ...

Wait, where is it ... it was here all time ... ah here it is:

Best
Thorsten

[coinoperator]

7 minutes ago, Toastie said:

take one of the instruction books, open it somewhere half through, swiftly stick your nose deep into the pages - man that smell - that totally chemical, out of this world, wonderful smell - painting pictures of "new" and "exciting" i

E X A C T L Y

[coinoperator]

Replace this with a PDF ?
No Way

[suffocation]

If I'm not mistaken, the instructions for 42056 were marketed as a coffee table book. If I'm relaxing with friends in front of the fire, sipping passito & vin santo and nibbling on cantucci (a.k.a. biscotti outside Italy, which Italians find quite amusing), the last thing I want is a bloody electronic device distracting my fellow banqueters.

[Lakop]

Paper for me anytime. Back in the day before digital I would stay up late into the night going over the paper instructions. Now (thirty years later) after the PC is shut down at night I can stay up late going through paper instructions again.

H

[nerdsforprez]

3 hours ago, Lasse D said:

That's very interesting. I looked into this topic before I made my post and followed the citations provided here: https://www.news-medical.net/health/Does-looking-at-a-computer-damage-your-eyes.aspx

The problems stated there all seem to be caused by sustained close-up visual activity, which would not be relevant here as you would be performing frequent changes in focus as you change from screen to the physical pieces. This was what I used to support my argument that with modern screens your eyes would not receive a worse impact than when using paper.

Do you have citations behind how paper affects the eyes differently, and how that can have a negative impact? I know you say it is technical, but I am willing to learn.

Respectfully, I am not sure what you think you read here that supports the claim that paper "attacks" the eyes in the same way electronic screens do.  In fact, I searched the reference and it didn't even mention the word "paper"..... not even once. So, I am not sure how a comparison can be made.  But in your comment you certainly made a comparison.  Essentially, all the reference you provided said was that perhaps screens do not permanently damage the eyes, but they do cause exhaustion and other irritability problems.  And even this does not seem to be correct.  Evidence is mounting of the problems blue light does cause .  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/08/11/how-blue-light-damages-cells-in-your-eyes/#5b0c4bd8384b

But the eye issue really is a red herring.  I made the mistake as well.  In my response to you I stated "paper does not affect the eyes the same way digital imaging does" when in reality I should have said something to the tune of "seeing paper images is not processed by the brain the same way that seeing the same images digitally does".  That is what I should have said.  I am not an eye expert, so the latter is much more accurate to what I can credibly speak to and also to the topic.  My initial point was in reference to reading comprehension which is another way to say "information processing."  And the brain processes digital information much differently than it does information presented on paper.  For details on this, see my earlier comment.   Also please note that it has less to do about digital vs. paper presentation, per se, and more about novelty vs. sameness in presentation

And to the comments about any correlation between autism spectrum disorders and screen time, please just ignore them.  They are reflective of the folks who have made them, but do not reflect any real truth.  Obviously, offering folks that are naturally reclusive a device that aides that isolation does not help their plight, and only fosters it.  But that is not a cause and effect relationship.   @Maaboo35 already gave an accurate definition of the condition.  I won't even give any retorts to that a breath, I recommend others don't as well

 

[Toastie]

2 hours ago, suffocation said:

If I'm not mistaken, the instructions for 42056 were marketed as a coffee table book.

Well - that is one - very nice - option.

I prefer stacking up instructions up in a library kind of way. All dark wood shelves, sharing the fire, some smoking cigars from - make in Cuba - I myself enjoying first a - probably - 10 years old Glenmorangie on the rocks (which is a sin; the ice that is) - simply because Conner did that in that movie - and then turn to a dirty, taste-explosive Lagavulin, regardless of make and mileage.

No way an electronic device is there as well.

Cheers,
Thorsten

[Lipko]

I prefer paper instructions but I wouldn't be too upset with digital only either.

[ShowsOn]

I'm a teacher at uni. These days we spend so much time using screens in lectures, tutorials, when marking work (everything is marked online these days), and of course when replying to dozens of emails.

I like paper instructions simply because it takes me away from my computer / phone / iPad for a while and adds to the relaxation / recreational effect of the building process. If my only option was to look at the instructions on a screen then some of the meditative aspect of assembling a set would disappear.

[Lasse D]

19 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Respectfully, I am not sure what you think you read here that supports the claim that paper "attacks" the eyes in the same way electronic screens do.  In fact, I searched the reference and it didn't even mention the word "paper"..... not even once. So, I am not sure how a comparison can be made.  But in your comment you certainly made a comparison.  Essentially, all the reference you provided said was that perhaps screens do not permanently damage the eyes, but they do cause exhaustion and other irritability problems.  And even this does not seem to be correct.  Evidence is mounting of the problems blue light does cause .  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/08/11/how-blue-light-damages-cells-in-your-eyes/#5b0c4bd8384b

But the eye issue really is a red herring.  I made the mistake as well.  In my response to you I stated "paper does not affect the eyes the same way digital imaging does" when in reality I should have said something to the tune of "seeing paper images is not processed by the brain the same way that seeing the same images digitally does".  That is what I should have said.  I am not an eye expert, so the latter is much more accurate to what I can credibly speak to and also to the topic.  My initial point was in reference to reading comprehension which is another way to say "information processing."  And the brain processes digital information much differently than it does information presented on paper.  For details on this, see my earlier comment.   Also please note that it has less to do about digital vs. paper presentation, per se, and more about novelty vs. sameness in presentation

(...)

That's odd. Let's take it from the top: Permo said paper does not "radiate" and does not "attack the eyes like a monitor does". I found this statement odd, looked it up and found only CRT's "radiate", while LCD and LED screens did not. This is where my source comes into the picture, and my response was the rather blunt: "Paper actually does "attack" eyes in the same way as a digital screen since it reflects light...". I made the assumption that when Permo said "attack the eyes", they meant in the sense that the eye would take damage due to this attack and I based my searching on this. All the results I could find regarding damage on eyes from screens were as I described in my previous post. This is also where we seem to be at odds and you seem to hinge on the "attack" angle rather than the "damage" angle which is what I am referring to. In hindsight I should not have used the word "attack" given how you have locked onto it, but I wanted to use the word from Permo.

Now you have given me a reference that finds how blue light can cause damage. I thank you for this and find it interesting. Clearly LED screens shine blue light directly given how they are constructed, but what about LCD and paper? How much blue light do they emit that has a negative impact on eyes? From your first response to my initial comment my guess is that reflective light from LCD screens is worse than from paper, so if you have a source on that as well, then this would be interesting to read up on.

[Toastie]

Well, I don't even know whether I should do this or not - looking at being tagged as "random Lego fan" (which is to the point, but reads ... well to the point). But then - what do I care - as a troll:

Radiation (as in photons) do have to strike the retina of our eyes to be recognized by our brain as "visible input". Call it an attack - the device called eye was designed in that way. The attack may be further dispersed in "bad", "okeyish", and "lame". The okeyish part is visible light - and this is what all devices radiate: CRTs, LEDs, and LCDs. The latter with illumination from the back - it is all the same: They actively radiate at you. Brightness, color distribution, etc. in contrast may all be different though. "Black" on a 20k$/€ LED display is close to black. Black on a CRT (anyone know these at all anymore?) are merely gray/green or whatever. I am color blind and thus don't care. Evolution has provided homo sapiens with rather powerful retina radiation protection devices; we can go out into the sun (and behold, that >is< radiation attack) without taking much damage - well almost no damage at all. So it is not the photons.

Refresh rates, i.e. flicker (not to be messed up with flickr), that's a totally different story. Remember the 50/60/100Hz setting on the refresh rate of your desktop? Particularly when living in Europe the 50 Hz refresh rates very nicely interfered with 220/240 V AC driven (50 Hz) fluorescent lamps. The screen was literally "swimming" in front of you - but back then, this was all totally cool ... then came the 60 Hz button - and - the wavy behavior was gone - you'd think. Your brain though was picking up that flicker ... making some people alert or nervous or whatever ...

Paper in turn is not radiating with a "refresh rate", as long as you use, let's say a fireplace or modern LED as illumination. Colored paper absorbs photons and shines back the rest to you - colors are registered via subtractive color mixing. Electronic devices can't do that - they need to refresh - otherwise you could not work with them. They do generate colors via additive color mixing - even LCDs do that - but that is not the point.

Actually I believe this is all not the point: When a modern electronic device is displaying an instruction it gets bored. And thus it alerts you of email, whatsapp, instragram, ... messages, that need to be answered at light speed, tells you about the best bargains at Wallmart, Target ..., reads to you the latest news about atomic bombs being ignited somewhere on some place on the planet (for test purposes only, of course), marriages and break-ups between the most important people on this world - and the worst thing ever, that is going to >rain<. Tomorrow, in a few days, whenever, but IT IS GOING TO RAIN. Period.

You know - a book is too dumb to do that. It is calm. Quiet. And at the same time an extremely exciting thing. The excitement is on a totally different level (I am not saying above or below!!!). I think that is all there is. It simply depends on what level you want to be excited. Just do your thing.

So @suffocation now we have quantum mechanics as well on the agenda

All the best
Thorsten

   

[suffocation]

Just now, Toastie said:

So @suffocation now we have quantum mechanics as well on the agenda

Enjoyed your whole write-up and agree with every bit of it

(I'm also colour-blind, as is quite apparent from my pathetic "mocs" --> "my own codswallop")

But the quantum mechanics part has me worried - what if the combination of too many digital instructions and too many pointlessly HEWGE models causes a gravitational redshift that tricks suicidal stars into mistaking the Earth for a black hole?

[Toastie]

Oh my - this is the second time in a few days in this forum that I don't get it - first there was @I_Igor talking about short intestines (I got a very polite and interesting PM on that issue, and I am very grateful for that!) and now this: HEWGE. Google knows sh*t about that ... man.

However, don't worry about quantum mechanics! Chances are high that they are planning for a hyperspace motorway >since long<. Passing through our solar system. Plans may be out for years - and no one here on Earth really cares: We have other things to do and to take care of. Building City-All-Terrain-Vehicles for example. So taking Heisenberg's uncertainty principle into consideration: The probability of being hit by such a lunatic star compared to just being blown apart for that really important highway is next to nothing.

Next to nothing as of now! Should TLG go all electronic, we need to re-estimate, I believe.

All the best
Thorsten

     

[Erik Leppen]

I have read through the discussion diagonally and wanted to mention a few things I feel have not been said up to now.

 

1. Some here present a false dichotomy between paper vs. digital. There is no "vs.". There is a thrid option: paper instructions sold separately. That way, the paper lovers can go paper, the screen lovers can go screen. Win win. (Of course, this new way would take time for people to get used to, and won't work for the whole world at once.)

2. There's also a false dichotomy between paper and pdf. Of course, if you go digital, then you can use the additional features this offers. That is, 3D instructions, animated instructions, automatic updates for new (one-set or two-set) models, and everything else that can be possible. I would also say that a good user-friendly dedicated animated 3D instructions app is harder to copy by bootleg companies than pdf files or printed stuff.

 

As far as I can see, there's quite a list of arguments either way.

• Paper instructions cost resources (including shipping all that weight) (and are often used only once)
• Digital instructions cost electricity (including server costs) (and are often used only once)
• Paper reading is better for comprehension (it remains a question whether this holds for imagery as well)
• Digital reading gives access to new presentation mechanisms (point 2 above) (it remains a question whether this can ever be better than paper.
• Personally I expect that ink-based screens (e-reader-like) would eliminate the difference between screen and paper. For still-based instructions (pdf) color ink-based screens would be perfect.
• Paper instructions don't "distract". (I'd say "airplane mode", but whatever)
• Color differences can be harder to read from screen
• Paper won't ever be "unavailable"; while apps can go offline. (However, we can still read ancient file formats, so pdf won't go anywhere soon.)
• There's too much screen time in the world already
• On the other hand, paper instructions cost more physical space to store. Digital storage is practically endless nowadays.

I'd prefer to get rid of all that paper. (And while we're at it, all the plastic bags as well.) Yes, I get it, Lego is literally plastic pieces, but these can be used for years so the cost : use ratio is very different.