The readability of content in digital format is often criticized with good reason. Digital fails to take into account readability we have used years of typography in the service of books and proofreading. Read a paper book, often when it is done with skill, is a much more enjoyable than proofreading a web page or a homothetic book experience. Often, because there are also many publishers and designers who through incompetence or ignorance realize simply unreadable books: Police ill-chosen, too narrow margins, line spacing and spacing too small or too large character, etc..
Examples are become many as methods to format text have democratized without the technicality of these methods is sufficiently developed to do this work precisely. In short, contrary to what made us believe technology processing, it remains difficult to “treat “, ” compose “, to set page. And web technologies that were not designed for the layout but the screen did not help that.
Nevertheless, the reactivity is quite different between the digital and paper. While correct file that automatically generates versions is fairly painless, enter a proofreading on a movie before reprint a book generates at least the cost of these films… And many publishers do not hesitate, in this fragile economy of the book, to the saving of a few hundred euros that can cost… Many traditional publishers are digitizing their fund providers from developing countries stick to a simple software via shucking proofreading.
Without wishing to draw the winners of a competition, the shells found in digital books are sometimes higher among traditional publishers in some pure digital player (but not all are demanding).
The digital economy, which is partly still more fragile than paper because it is often based on smaller amounts, may not improve the economy of the proofreading that has already disappeared. Certainly, we will be forced to get used to.