{"id":14092,"date":"2015-05-26T11:31:39","date_gmt":"2015-05-26T15:31:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=14092"},"modified":"2015-05-26T11:31:39","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T15:31:39","slug":"books-versus-e-readers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/books-versus-e-readers\/","title":{"rendered":"Books versus E-readers"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div>\n<p id=\"pvc_stats_14092\" class=\"pvc_stats all  \" data-element-id=\"14092\" style=\"\"><i class=\"pvc-stats-icon medium\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><svg xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" version=\"1.0\" viewBox=\"0 0 502 315\" preserveAspectRatio=\"xMidYMid meet\"><g transform=\"translate(0,332) scale(0.1,-0.1)\" fill=\"\" stroke=\"none\"><path d=\"M2394 3279 l-29 -30 -3 -207 c-2 -182 0 -211 15 -242 39 -76 157 -76 196 0 15 31 17 60 15 243 l-3 209 -33 29 c-26 23 -41 29 -80 29 -41 0 -53 -5 -78 -31z\"\/><path d=\"M3085 3251 c-45 -19 -58 -50 -96 -229 -47 -217 -49 -260 -13 -295 52 -53 146 -42 177 20 16 31 87 366 87 410 0 70 -86 122 -155 94z\"\/><path d=\"M1751 3234 c-13 -9 -29 -31 -37 -50 -12 -29 -10 -49 21 -204 19 -94 39 -189 45 -210 14 -50 54 -80 110 -80 34 0 48 6 76 34 21 21 34 44 34 59 0 14 -18 113 -40 219 -37 178 -43 195 -70 221 -36 32 -101 37 -139 11z\"\/><path d=\"M1163 3073 c-36 -7 -73 -59 -73 -102 0 -56 133 -378 171 -413 34 -32 83 -37 129 -13 70 36 67 87 -16 290 -86 209 -89 214 -129 231 -35 14 -42 15 -82 7z\"\/><path d=\"M3689 3066 c-15 -9 -33 -30 -42 -48 -48 -103 -147 -355 -147 -375 0 -98 131 -148 192 -74 13 15 57 108 97 206 80 196 84 226 37 273 -30 30 -99 39 -137 18z\"\/><path d=\"M583 2784 c-38 -19 -67 -74 -58 -113 9 -42 211 -354 242 -373 16 -10 45 -18 66 -18 51 0 107 52 107 100 0 39 -1 41 -124 234 -80 126 -108 162 -133 173 -41 17 -61 16 -100 -3z\"\/><path d=\"M4250 2784 c-14 -9 -74 -91 -133 -183 -95 -150 -107 -173 -107 -213 0 -55 33 -94 87 -104 67 -13 90 8 211 198 130 202 137 225 78 284 -27 27 -42 34 -72 34 -22 0 -50 -8 -64 -16z\"\/><path d=\"M2275 2693 c-553 -48 -1095 -270 -1585 -649 -135 -104 -459 -423 -483 -476 -23 -49 -22 -139 2 -186 73 -142 361 -457 571 -626 285 -228 642 -407 990 -497 242 -63 336 -73 660 -74 310 0 370 5 595 52 535 111 1045 392 1455 803 122 121 250 273 275 326 19 41 19 137 0 174 -41 79 -309 363 -465 492 -447 370 -946 591 -1479 653 -113 14 -422 18 -536 8z m395 -428 c171 -34 330 -124 456 -258 112 -119 167 -219 211 -378 27 -96 24 -300 -5 -401 -72 -255 -236 -447 -474 -557 -132 -62 -201 -76 -368 -76 -167 0 -236 14 -368 76 -213 98 -373 271 -451 485 -162 444 86 934 547 1084 153 49 292 57 452 25z m909 -232 c222 -123 408 -262 593 -441 76 -74 138 -139 138 -144 0 -16 -233 -242 -330 -319 -155 -123 -309 -223 -461 -299 l-81 -41 32 46 c18 26 49 83 70 128 143 306 141 649 -6 957 -25 52 -61 116 -79 142 l-34 47 45 -20 c26 -10 76 -36 113 -56z m-2057 25 c-40 -58 -105 -190 -130 -263 -110 -324 -59 -707 132 -981 25 -35 42 -64 37 -64 -19 0 -241 119 -326 174 -188 122 -406 314 -532 468 l-58 71 108 103 c185 178 428 349 672 473 66 33 121 60 123 61 2 0 -10 -19 -26 -42z\"\/><path d=\"M2375 1950 c-198 -44 -350 -190 -395 -379 -18 -76 -8 -221 19 -290 114 -284 457 -406 731 -260 98 52 188 154 231 260 27 69 37 214 19 290 -38 163 -166 304 -326 360 -67 23 -215 33 -279 19z\"\/><\/g><\/svg><\/i> <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"16\" height=\"16\" alt=\"Loading\" src=\"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-content\/plugins\/page-views-count\/ajax-loader-2x.gif\" border=0 \/><\/p>\n<div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.advantagebookbinding.com\/blog\/books-and-ereaders\/print-books-still-preferred-e-books\/\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/www.advantagebookbinding.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/ereader-vs-book-300x196.jpg\" alt=\"Books vs ereader\" width=\"300\" \/><\/a><strong>Back in February, Naomi Baron wrote a piece called<\/strong> &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/blog.oup.com\/2015\/02\/reading-on-screen-versus-paper\/?utm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=oupacademic&amp;utm_campaign=oupblog\" target=\"_blank\">Reading on-screen versus on paper<\/a>,&#8221; in which she compared the two reading experiences: printed books and e-readers in five areas:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cost<\/li>\n<li>Container vs content<\/li>\n<li>Environmental impact<\/li>\n<li>Quality of screens<\/li>\n<li>Concentration<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Baron actually looks at these as true-or-false questions, not really comparisons. She doesn&#8217;t address issues like aesthetics, tactile sense or emotional response, or the relative value\u00a0of hypertext to content, nor does she tread into the science and ergonomics of reading. For that, you have to look elsewhere. Which, of course, I\u00a0did.<\/p>\n<p>First let me state that it is not really an us-vs-them situation: e-readers vs printed books. Both technologies co-exist quite comfortably and each has its own merits. Neither will displace the other, and\u00a0our civilization cannot survive with only digital content.<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">*<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Several Pew Research studies have shown that the number of Americans owning e-readers is still modest (24\u00a0percent\u00a0by the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2013\/10\/18\/tablet-and-e-reader-ownership-update\/\" target=\"_blank\">end of 2013<\/a>\u00a0but 32 percent <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2014\/01\/16\/tablet-and-e-reader-ownership\/\" target=\"_blank\">by Jan. 2014<\/a>; compared with tablet ownership which was at 42 percent <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2014\/01\/16\/a-snapshot-of-reading-in-america-in-2013\/\" target=\"_blank\">by 2014<\/a>) and the number of adults who had read an e-book within the previous year was <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2014\/01\/16\/e-reading-rises-as-device-ownership-jumps\/\" target=\"_blank\">a mere 28 percent<\/a>\u00a0with only 4 percent reading e-books exclusively (up to 5 percent <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2014\/01\/16\/a-snapshot-of-reading-in-america-in-2013\/\" target=\"_blank\">by 2014<\/a>). That, however, is a slowly growing figure.<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">**<\/span><\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Reading has been studied scientifically for years. The movement of the eye when reading, the effect of typeface, line length, contrast between page and ink, word size, punctuation&#8230; All play into readability. And, we&#8217;re learning, so do screen refresh rates, back lighting, flicker and screen clarity.<\/p>\n<p>Computer screens flicker in ways that, while we cannot always discern consciously, may affect our reading. Some studies have suggested that they impair reading ability and cause eyestrain. While e-readers also flicker, they do so much faster than the standard 60 Hz of the computer screen refresh rate. As this excerpt from a <a href=\"http:\/\/bits.blogs.nytimes.com\/2010\/02\/12\/do-e-readers-cause-eye-strain\/?_r=0\" target=\"_blank\">New York Times piece<\/a> notes, e-readers don&#8217;t have a noticeable flicker:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. \u201cWhile you\u2019re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It\u2019s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,\u201d he said.<br \/>\nToday\u2019s screens are definitely less tiring to look at than older displays, which refreshed the image much less frequently, causing a flicker. Carl Taussig, director of Hewlett-Packard\u2018s Information Surfaces Lab, said the 120 Hz refresh rate typical of modern screens is much quicker than our eyes can even see.<br \/>\n\u201cThe new LCDs don\u2019t affect your eyes,\u201d Mr. Taussig said. \u201cToday\u2019s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Perhaps the narrow width of the e-reader screen also means any flicker would not be as noticeable as on a wider screen.<\/p>\n<p>On the positive side, the enhanced contrast of a\u00a0backlit\u00a0e-reader screen can make text more legible. And the ability to increase text size helps people with vision impairment or simply bad eyesight.<\/p>\n<p>I have some personal experience with this: my mother &#8211; a voracious reader &#8211; developed <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Macular_degeneration\" target=\"_blank\">macular degeneration<\/a> in her final years, which prevented her from reading even large-prints books without difficulty. However, she was able to read a Kobo because it allowed her to enlarge the type enough for it to be clear. She continued to use hers until just before her death, at age 95.<\/p>\n<p>A piece on<a href=\"http:\/\/lifehacker.com\/5934993\/is-e-ink-really-better-for-my-eyes-than-my-ipad\" target=\"_blank\"> Lifehacker<\/a> included this comment from Joe Croft, co-founder and EVP of Research Design and Development at Gunnar, which makes specialty glasses, about some of the technical aspects to be considered:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>Glare and visual &#8220;noise&#8221;:<\/strong> Most tablets (e.g. iPad) have a glossy screen. I believe most e-ink screens are optimized for a matte screen, which allows our eyes to relax in a more natural state, but does not address some of the other issues associated with eye strain, such as distance and reduced blink rate.<br \/>\n<strong>Quality of light:<\/strong> Our eyes are designed to process natural, reflected light better than self-illuminated objects (i.e. artificial light). E-Ink wins in this regard and can help reduce strain when compared to LCD screens.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>But let&#8217;s not be complacent. Reading on paper and screen have different psychological and emotional effects, as a piece on the <a href=\"http:\/\/publiclibrariesonline.org\/2014\/02\/the-physical-effects-of-e-reading\/\" target=\"_blank\">Public Library Association site<\/a> notes (emphasis added):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>According to a recent <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/the-reading-brain-in-the-digital-age-why-paper-still-beats-screens\/\" target=\"_blank\">Scientific American article<\/a>, reading paper versus electronic material makes a difference when it comes to memory and learning. In digital format, readers tend to skim, looking for keywords. As a result the full content of the material is often lost.<br \/>\nScreen reading takes more mental energy thereby leaving less for actual content retention. Students who read text via a computer screen did a little bit worse on a reading comprehension test than those students who used actual textbooks. During the test, they were able to look back at their textbooks for answers. The students who used actual textbooks retained not only more information but memory as to where that information was located.<br \/>\nAlso, \u201cseeing\u201d only a page or two at a time rather than the whole book is disorienting to the reader. Although most e-readers have a digital readout somewhere on the screen of the readers progress within the book, that\u2019s not enough. <strong>To physically hold the book and flip through individual pages makes the reader feel more grounded to the experience than a simple readout of her progress on the screen. When readers are grounded to the experience, material is more likely to be remembered.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Another consideration is the conflation of terms. While I think of e-readers and tablets as separate technologies, some reports blend them together or ignore one for the other. That caused some confusion when a recent study showed &#8216;e-readers&#8217; caused problems with sleep. But that was clarified in this piece on <a href=\"https:\/\/gigaom.com\/2014\/12\/23\/do-e-readers-really-harm-sleep-depends-what-you-call-an-e-reader\/\" target=\"_blank\">Gigaom<\/a>\u00a0as relating to tablets and smartphones, not e-ink technology:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The key problem with this study and the more alarmist stories that followed, is that when it says \u201ce-reader\u201d, it means \u201cApple iPad\u201d. An iPad at full brightness, no less. When I hear \u201ce-reader\u201d, I tend to think \u201cdedicated e-reader\u201d \u2013 an e-ink device without a backlit screen \u2014 rather than a multi-purpose tablet. And there\u2019s a big difference.<br \/>\nThe screens of devices such as tablets and smartphones have long been known to emit short-wavelength light, also known as blue light. All light can suppress the secretion of melatonin \u2013 the hormone that controls our day-night cycles \u2013 in the evening and night-time, but blue light has a particularly pronounced effect and previous studies have shown that it\u2019s best avoided at night.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It also adds,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Charles Czeisler, director of the Division of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School, who co-authored the study, told the Washington Post that the \u201cstandard Kindle\u201d would provide an exception to the study\u2019s findings as it does not emit light and was more like reading a paper book.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It seems e-readers are unlikely to reach the level of saturation that print has, and I suspect the number of people who read on them, or even on tablets, exclusively will remain relatively low. The experience of reading a printed book is still superior and offers advantages for memory and engagement. However, they are a complementary technology and many of us readers use both print and e-ink formats for reading.<\/p>\n<p><strong>~~~~~<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">*<\/span> Once upon a time, the wealth of a person was measured by the size of their library, because books were notoriously expensive and every one was copied by hand. When printing was automated, that changed so that the personal library came to reflect the culture of a person, their wisdom, as well as their standing in the community. It still does. You can tell a huge amount about a person by simply looking at the number of books and their titles in their library.<br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">**<\/span>\u00a0Pew Research found that 76% of American adults read a book in some format during the year. The typical American adult read (or listened to) 5 books (the median) in the past year:\u00a0half of American adults read more than 5 books and half read fewer (the average was 12). I personally don&#8217;t believe audio-books should be counted in statistics about reading.<\/p>\n<p>A <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theglobeandmail.com\/arts\/books-and-media\/when-it-comes-to-books-canadians-read-a-lot-but-also-worry-a-lot\/article562391\/\" target=\"_blank\">Globe and Mail story<\/a> says Canadians buy more than a million books each week. A <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pch.gc.ca\/eng\/1290797114127\/1290797724067\" target=\"_blank\">2005 government survey<\/a> found 54% of Canadians read every day, and read an average 17 books a year (no median was reported) and read an average of 4.5 hours a week. This was followed in 2008 by an<a href=\"http:\/\/www.canada.com\/story.html?id=81b3a991-6004-4ca8-8259-4d605e1cf767\" target=\"_blank\"> Ipsos\u00a0Reid survey<\/a> that showed that Canadians were reading less than before.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most depressing statements I&#8217;ve ever read was, &#8220;&#8230;nearly a third of adults (31 per cent) across the country <strong>didn&#8217;t read a single book<\/strong> for pleasure in all of 2007.&#8221; However, those who continued to read were reading more: &#8220;&#8230;the 69 per cent of Canadians who were reading in 2007 did so voraciously, with the average person in that group having dug into 20 books over the course of the year.&#8221; So I suppose there is some good news in that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div>\n<p id=\"pvc_stats_14092\" class=\"pvc_stats all  \" data-element-id=\"14092\" style=\"\"><i class=\"pvc-stats-icon medium\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><svg xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" version=\"1.0\" viewBox=\"0 0 502 315\" preserveAspectRatio=\"xMidYMid meet\"><g transform=\"translate(0,332) scale(0.1,-0.1)\" fill=\"\" stroke=\"none\"><path d=\"M2394 3279 l-29 -30 -3 -207 c-2 -182 0 -211 15 -242 39 -76 157 -76 196 0 15 31 17 60 15 243 l-3 209 -33 29 c-26 23 -41 29 -80 29 -41 0 -53 -5 -78 -31z\"\/><path d=\"M3085 3251 c-45 -19 -58 -50 -96 -229 -47 -217 -49 -260 -13 -295 52 -53 146 -42 177 20 16 31 87 366 87 410 0 70 -86 122 -155 94z\"\/><path d=\"M1751 3234 c-13 -9 -29 -31 -37 -50 -12 -29 -10 -49 21 -204 19 -94 39 -189 45 -210 14 -50 54 -80 110 -80 34 0 48 6 76 34 21 21 34 44 34 59 0 14 -18 113 -40 219 -37 178 -43 195 -70 221 -36 32 -101 37 -139 11z\"\/><path d=\"M1163 3073 c-36 -7 -73 -59 -73 -102 0 -56 133 -378 171 -413 34 -32 83 -37 129 -13 70 36 67 87 -16 290 -86 209 -89 214 -129 231 -35 14 -42 15 -82 7z\"\/><path d=\"M3689 3066 c-15 -9 -33 -30 -42 -48 -48 -103 -147 -355 -147 -375 0 -98 131 -148 192 -74 13 15 57 108 97 206 80 196 84 226 37 273 -30 30 -99 39 -137 18z\"\/><path d=\"M583 2784 c-38 -19 -67 -74 -58 -113 9 -42 211 -354 242 -373 16 -10 45 -18 66 -18 51 0 107 52 107 100 0 39 -1 41 -124 234 -80 126 -108 162 -133 173 -41 17 -61 16 -100 -3z\"\/><path d=\"M4250 2784 c-14 -9 -74 -91 -133 -183 -95 -150 -107 -173 -107 -213 0 -55 33 -94 87 -104 67 -13 90 8 211 198 130 202 137 225 78 284 -27 27 -42 34 -72 34 -22 0 -50 -8 -64 -16z\"\/><path d=\"M2275 2693 c-553 -48 -1095 -270 -1585 -649 -135 -104 -459 -423 -483 -476 -23 -49 -22 -139 2 -186 73 -142 361 -457 571 -626 285 -228 642 -407 990 -497 242 -63 336 -73 660 -74 310 0 370 5 595 52 535 111 1045 392 1455 803 122 121 250 273 275 326 19 41 19 137 0 174 -41 79 -309 363 -465 492 -447 370 -946 591 -1479 653 -113 14 -422 18 -536 8z m395 -428 c171 -34 330 -124 456 -258 112 -119 167 -219 211 -378 27 -96 24 -300 -5 -401 -72 -255 -236 -447 -474 -557 -132 -62 -201 -76 -368 -76 -167 0 -236 14 -368 76 -213 98 -373 271 -451 485 -162 444 86 934 547 1084 153 49 292 57 452 25z m909 -232 c222 -123 408 -262 593 -441 76 -74 138 -139 138 -144 0 -16 -233 -242 -330 -319 -155 -123 -309 -223 -461 -299 l-81 -41 32 46 c18 26 49 83 70 128 143 306 141 649 -6 957 -25 52 -61 116 -79 142 l-34 47 45 -20 c26 -10 76 -36 113 -56z m-2057 25 c-40 -58 -105 -190 -130 -263 -110 -324 -59 -707 132 -981 25 -35 42 -64 37 -64 -19 0 -241 119 -326 174 -188 122 -406 314 -532 468 l-58 71 108 103 c185 178 428 349 672 473 66 33 121 60 123 61 2 0 -10 -19 -26 -42z\"\/><path d=\"M2375 1950 c-198 -44 -350 -190 -395 -379 -18 -76 -8 -221 19 -290 114 -284 457 -406 731 -260 98 52 188 154 231 260 27 69 37 214 19 290 -38 163 -166 304 -326 360 -67 23 -215 33 -279 19z\"\/><\/g><\/svg><\/i> <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"16\" height=\"16\" alt=\"Loading\" src=\"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-content\/plugins\/page-views-count\/ajax-loader-2x.gif\" border=0 \/><\/p>\n<div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div>\n<p>Back in February, Naomi Baron wrote a piece called &#8220;Reading on-screen versus on paper,&#8221; in which she compared the two reading experiences: printed books and e-readers in five areas: Cost Container vs content Environmental impact Quality of screens Concentration Baron actually looks at these as true-or-false questions, not really comparisons. She doesn&#8217;t address issues like aesthetics, tactile sense or emotional response, or the relative value\u00a0of hypertext to content, nor does she tread into the science and ergonomics of reading. For that, you have to look elsewhere. Which, of course, I\u00a0did. First let me state that it is not really an \u2026&#8230;&#8230; click below for more \u2193<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[8,436,431],"tags":[406,588,147,29],"class_list":["post-14092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-e-books-e-readers","category-technology-gadgets","tag-books-reviews","tag-e-readers","tag-reading","tag-science"],"a3_pvc":{"activated":true,"total_views":7676,"today_views":0},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14092"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14092\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14233,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14092\/revisions\/14233"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}