Lined tablet paper: Writing Tablet for Kids Paper: Notebook with Dotted Lined Sheets for Kindergarten To 3rd Grade Students, 100 pages, 8.5×11 inches: 9781073016969: Notebooks, Michelle: Books


ReMarkable’s redesigned e-paper tablet is more powerful and more papery – TechCrunch

It’s no secret I’m a fan of the reMarkable, a tablet with a paper-like display that’s focused on text and sketching rather than rich media and games. The sequel to the original, announced today, looks to make a good thing even better.

Designed for the creation and consumption of monochromatic content like long documents, e-books, notes and sketches, the reMarkable set itself apart as a more minimalist alternative (or complement) to the likes of the iPad or Surface. The device was crowdfunded and has sold more than 100,000 units; meanwhile, the company has grown and attracted a $15 million A round. One sees in retrospect that the money helped launch this successor.

The most obvious change is to the design. It has a bold asymmetrical look with a chrome band along the left side, indicating the tablet’s main use as an alternative to a paper notebook: Hold it with your left hand and write with your right. Sorry, lefties.

The new tablet is just 4.7 mm (0.19 in) thick, thinner than the iPad Pro and Sony’s competing Digital Paper tablets, both of which are 5.9 mm. Let’s be honest — at these levels of thinness it’s getting hard to tell the difference, but it’s an accomplishment nevertheless.

Probably the best thing about the original reMarkable, however, was how good it felt to write and draw on, and the company has spent the last few years improving that wherever they can. For one thing, the already very small delay of about 40 ms between touching the screen with the stylus and a line appearing has been nearly cut in half.

That’s an area where every milli-unit counts. The lag on a real pen and paper is zero, of course, and while the reMarkable was good, there was still a very slight lag, especially when making large gestures or lines. As the company explained to me:

The hardware to further push the latency down further did not exist, so we decided to invent the technology ourselves. We redesigned both the hardware and software architecture that controls the display through a completely new display controller that changes how the display itself is electrically controlled, down to the voltages and electrical currents applied in complex waveforms to each individual pixel, millions at a time. The result is a 20ms latency, smoother ink flow with less jitter, and a completely uncontested digital writing experience perfected.

I intend to investigate this myself once I get my hands on one of the new devices. The company worked with E Ink, the main manufacturer and investor in e-paper type displays, to accomplish the new display, which has the same specs as the previous one otherwise: 10.3 inches, monochrome, 1872×1404 resolution for 226 DPI.

Here’s the inevitable, yet well-executed, aspirational promo video:

The software running on the reMarkable has received several major updates since the product made its debut, adding things like handwriting recognition, a new interface, better performance and so on. But one of the most requested features is finally coming with the new device: saving articles from the web.

Unfortunately they didn’t answer my specific request of adding Pocket integration, deciding instead to roll their own with a Chrome plugin that sends a reformatted web page to the device. Unfortunately I use Firefox, but I can make an exception for this.

The company is claiming a 3x boost to battery life, using the same 3,000 mAh battery, based on performance improvements throughout and a more efficient (but more powerful) dual-core ARM processor. That means two weeks of use and 90 days of standby. This is welcome news, because frankly the battery life and power management on the last one were not great.

Lastly, the “Marker” itself is getting an upgrade I’ve desperately wanted since the first day I tried the tablet: an eraser. You could always erase by selecting that tool, of course, but now one of the tips of the stylus will activate it automatically, a feature borrowed from Wacom and accomplished in collaboration with them. Of course, the eraser-enabled “Marker Plus” costs $99, $50 more than the plain one. They both stick onto the tablet via magnet, though.

“We’ve worked closely with Wacom the last two years to create Marker Plus, the most beautiful pen we have ever made,” reMarkable co-founder and CEO Magnus Wanberg told TechCrunch. “In addition to premium materials and design, it features an end-cap eraser that works seamlessly with the reMarkable software. We’ve fined-tuned the eraser sensor in collaboration with Wacom’s engineering team to make sure it looks and feels like just a real eraser on paper.”

But overall you’re looking at a much cheaper package. The reMarkable, for all its merits, was not cheap at $700. The reMarkable 2 will sell for $399 if you pre-order, and comes with a Marker and a nice folio case. For anyone who was on the fence about the first one, the sequel may prove irresistible.

How to Choose a Legal Pad

Legal Pads may or may not be ordered with legal ruling and in legal size paper. In fact, neither the width of the rules (or lines) on the paper nor the size of the paper on the pad classify a pad of paper as a “Legal Pad”. If you are still unsure, here are some helpful tips to make it EZ-ier to understand which Legal Pad you need to order.

What exactly is a Legal Pad?

The only requirement for a pad of writing paper to qualify as a “legal pad” is that the paper must have a 1-1/4” vertical line (aka “down line”) placed from the left edge of the page. The original and traditional appearance of the legal pad had yellow paper, blue horizontal lines, a red vertical line creating a left margin and a red gummed top. Today, that is no longer the case.

Note: A “legal pad” does not mean that the paper size on the pad itself is legal-size (8-1/2”W x 14”L), although it can be ordered that way. A Legal Pad just means the paper on the pad has a vertical line drawn down creating a 1-1/4” margin from the left side.

What paper sizes are Legal Pads made in?

In North America, we are generally accustomed to reading width, length and height displayed in fractions, versus decimals or millimeters. Therefore, Legal Pads generally come in four different sizes:

  • A6 Size: 4-3/25” wide X 5-22/25” long
  • Junior Legal Size: 5” wide X 8” long
  • Legal Size: 8-1/2” wide X 14” long
  • Letter Size: 8-1/2” wide X 11” long

What does Ruled or Ruling mean on a Legal Pad?

“Ruled” or “Ruling” simply refers to the horizontal lines on the paper. But! The ruled lines come in different widths and consequently create more or less lines on the piece of paper.

What widths of Ruling can be chosen for the paper on a Legal Pad?

In North America, ruled paper is available in a variety of semi-standardized formats. Remember, all legal pads have a vertical line drawn 1-1/4” from top to bottom on the left side of the paper to create a margin:

  • Wide ruled. Also known as Legal Ruled.
    • 11/32” line spacing between lines – has the least number of lines on the page
    • Choose wide ruled or legal ruled if you write large
    • Often used in American grade schools
  • Medium ruled. Also known as College Ruled.
    • 9/32” spacing between lines – has more lines on the page than wide ruled
    • Its use is very common in the United States
  • Narrow ruled.
    • 1/4” spacing between lines – has the most number of lines on the page
    • Choose narrow ruled if you write small, if you need more lines per page, or if you’re a glutton for punishment when required to write a 2-page paper for school (you’ll have a lot more lines to fill with text)

Does a Legal Pad mean the paper is always yellow?

No. The original Legal Pad was made by dying the paper yellow. Other than speculation, nobody really knows why. In fact, it’s more expensive to buy a yellow legal pad than a white one. Today, legal pads (with the 1-1/4” margin on the left) come in a variety of colors:

  • Yellow (also called Canary)
  • White
  • Blue
  • Gray
  • Green
  • Ivory
  • Orchid
  • Pink

The next time someone says; “Order me some legal pads, will ya?” You’ll know to follow with: “Sure, I would be happy to. First, tell me…”

  1. What size do you want the paper to be…Letter, Legal, Junior Legal, or A6 paper?
  2. What ruling would you like…Wide, medium or narrow?
  3. What color would you like the paper?


EZ Office Products is a proud paper supplier for all your office supplies needs. Contact us today to set up your customer account.

The reMarkable 2 is a gorgeous e-paper tablet begging for better software

A few weeks ago during a post-earnings call, Liz Fraser, the CEO of Kate Spade, told a two-sentence story I haven’t been able to stop thinking about. “We’ve got a best-selling bag right now that’s a pineapple, and it’s $348,” she said. “And she’s happy to pay for that because it makes her happy.” Intrigued, I started looking at the bag’s reviews. “It is small, so it’s not my everyday purse,” one reads, before concluding with “I LOVE IT TO PIECES” anyway. Another proclaims that “although it’s not as convenient as I would like, I enjoy having this bag a lot.

After living with it for a few days, I’ve decided the reMarkable 2 is my pineapple purse.

Like the original before it, this is a pricey tablet with an e-paper display that does a fraction of what other tablets can do for the same $400 or so. It’s more reasonably priced than the first model, and to get the most out of it, you basically have to buy a $50 stylus. You’ll get one for free if you preorder the reMarkable, but you’re SOL after that. By every metric that counts, this thing should be absolutely obnoxious. And yet, it’s made so well, with such fine attention to detail, that I can’t help but like it anyway. What can I say? It just makes me happy.

Author’s note: reMarkable provided us with a pre-production version of its new tablet, so it might exhibit bugs or behavior that shouldn’t appear in final retail models. The company also announced yesterday that its first shipments of the v2 tablet would be delayed, with the earliest pre-orders shipping in “early September. ” In other words, we don’t actually know when we’ll get to use a “final” model, so don’t look at this as a full review — it’s more of an early look at what the company got right and what it flubbed.


Before we go any further, it’s worth spelling out exactly what reMarkable was trying to build here. For years, the company has been talking about “paper” tablets, devices that — because of their limited lists of features — help you focus more on the task at hand. In this case, those tasks are largely limited to note-taking, sketching, annotating documents, and reading PDFs and eBooks. There are a few more advanced features on the reMarkable 2, like the ability to sync articles to the tablet via a Chrome extension and convert your handwriting into text, but even those just solidify the tablet’s intent. This is a device for people who care about writing and reading to the exclusion of just about everything else.

It’s also prettier than ever. With its 10.3-inch Canvas display and bright white plastic body, the first reMarkable tablet looked like an old, super-sized Kindle. (And I mean that with all possible fondness.) And just like the Kindle, the reMarkable has undergone an impressive physical transformation — that white plastic is gone, replaced by a handsome aluminum frame that adds some reassuring heft. reMarkable also shaved a few millimeters off the tablet’s waistline, resulting in what the company eagerly calls the “world’s thinnest tablet.” At 4.7mm thick, there’s no denying the reMarkable 2 will make an iPad feel chonky by comparison, but considering this thing a “tablet” in the traditional sense is sort of a stretch.

The makeover doesn’t end there. Most of its physical buttons are gone — the only one left is the sleep/wake button on the tablet’s top left corner and the microUSB port has been replaced with a USB-C port.

Magnets embedded into the sides of the tablet let you attach the Marker (assuming you bought one) for easy storage, and help the reMarkable 2 latch into a handsome leather folio case. And curiously, a smattering of pogo pins on the tablet’s bottom-left edge hints at future expansion plans — not that the company was willing to talk about them yet.

Brian Oh/Engadget

Then there’s the screen. It’s the same size and resolution (1,872×1,404) as the one found in the original model; there’s still plenty of space to scrawl and doodle. There are some significant benefits that come with using the reMarkable 2’s more modern display, though: Text looks a little clearer, and when used with the new Marker, the tablet can detect 4,096 levels of pressure for more precise shading. More importantly, thanks to a newer Canvas panel and some improved internals, the latency between the Marker and screen has been cut nearly in half, from about 40ms to 21ms here.

I don’t doubt that some will benefit from that upgrade; artists, in particular, will notice the difference as they lay down long, sweeping lines. I’m more of a frenzied note-taker, so I deal mainly with short, staccato strokes. In situations where I’m just trying to get everything down fast, this combination of screen and Marker didn’t feel appreciably better. Still, I’m glad reMarkable put in the work. And I’m especially glad the company changed how the screen feels.

The company says it used a new textured resin layer on top of the glass to make writing on the reMarkable 2 feel more like writing on paper, which I don’t buy. If anything, the original reMarkable’s screen had a more pronounced, paper-like grittiness that doesn’t come through here. That’s hardly a dealbreaker, though, because writing on the r2 still feels absolutely fantastic, I think this one strikes a better balance of tactility and flow.

There’s a subtle feel to writing on this that’s missing from devices like the iPad Pro, and it goes a long way in making the very act of using the Marker feel more natural.

Brian Oh/Engadget

Again, I really can’t overstate just how nice this hardware is. reMarkable did an amazing job elevating its tablet’s design, and more importantly, all that work serves the purpose of keeping your eyes locked right on that screen. It’s clean, it’s functional, and I’m here for it. But that’s not to say the reMarkable 2 is the upgrade everyone has been waiting for.

For one, there’s still just 8GB of internal storage here, of which roughly 6GB is available to play with, out of the box. That’s been plenty so far, but considering this thing’s price, a bit of a boost here wouldn’t have been out of line. Meanwhile, a 1.2GHz dual-core CPU replaces the pokey processor found in the original, and the 1GB of RAM is double what the first reMarkable shipped with.

On paper, that sounds like the leg up this tablet has long needed. In practice, the difference in performance feels negligible. Popping in and out of notebooks feels equally quick on both models, as does poking through menus and all of the typical navigation bits. Really, the only times I noticed a difference in performance was when it came to dealing with files I loaded onto the reMarkable 2.

As I mentioned, you can use the reMarkable 2 as an enormous e-reader if you’re willing to sniff out DRM-free ePub files. (In other words, don’t bother trying to get your Kindle library onto this thing.) In my experience, the formatting of ePub files tends to look a little screwy on the reMarkable, which makes tweaking the font, margins, justification, and line spacing a must. That all happens only slightly faster on the reMarkable 2, but unless you’re testing an older model right next to it, you will not notice the difference. Ditto for loading and reading PDFs: The reMarkable 2 will render certain pages (particularly those with graphics or diagrams) marginally quicker than the original model, but again, it’s almost a dead heat between the two.

Brian Oh/Engadget

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, though. I’m told software running on this new hardware is basically identical to what you’d find on the older model — no exclusive features or tweaks were added. That will almost certainly change over time, but for now, it means none of the reMarkable 2’s underlying code was optimized for this improved hardware. That’s a shame when you consider the company’s fans have been waiting about two years for a follow-up, and right off the bat, I can think of a few features I’m surprised didn’t make the cut.

This screen might not look like it, but it supports multi-touch inputs — I would’ve loved to see pinch-to-zoom controls here to make honing in on passages in PDFs less laborious. Some sort of syncing to external cloud storage services would’ve been nice, too — I know plenty of note-takers who swear by OneNote, and I would love the option of exporting my marked-up files directly to Dropbox or Google Drive. (In fairness, reMarkable has its own cloud syncing service, which works well enough but requires to you use a separate app.)

This is a device for people who care about writing and reading to the exclusion of just about everything else.

I’ve spent a lot of time comparing the reMarkable 2 to its predecessor, because, well — I’m a reviewer. I professionally pick nits. If you’re walking into this story totally cold, though, know that this tablet is an astonishingly good note-taking tool. You can create multiple notebooks for different projects or classes, and you have access to different templates to help the reMarkable work equally well as a sketchbook or weekly planner. Marking up PDFs is a breeze, and reading e-books, while janky sometimes, works passably.

Put another way, the reMarkable 2 manages to get a lot right, even if the most meaningful differences right now are cosmetic. And to someone like me who’s been trying to jump-start a long lost passion for writing by hand, the experience is largely delightful. Whether that’s enough to warrant $400 on a super-niche tablet is up to you. Thankfully, you’ll have plenty of time to chew on your decision: If you haven’t already pre-ordered one of these things, you’re not getting one until November at the earliest. With any luck, reMarkable will address some of these shortcomings with new software before people even have to deal with them.

All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

Is Handwriting Performance Affected by the Writing Surface? Comparing Preschoolers’, Second Graders’, and Adults’ Writing Performance on a Tablet vs. Paper


Due to their multifunctionality, tablets offer tremendous advantages for research on handwriting dynamics or for interactive use of learning apps in schools. Further, the widespread use of tablet computers has had a great impact on handwriting in the current generation. But, is it advisable to teach how to write and to assess handwriting in pre- and primary schoolchildren on tablets rather than on paper? Since handwriting is not automatized before the age of 10 years, children’s handwriting movements require graphomotor and visual feedback as well as permanent control of movement execution during handwriting. Modifications in writing conditions, for instance the smoother writing surface of a tablet, might influence handwriting performance in general and in particular those of non-automatized beginning writers. In order to investigate how handwriting performance is affected by a difference in friction of the writing surface, we recruited three groups with varying levels of handwriting automaticity: 25 preschoolers, 27 second graders, and 25 adults. We administered three tasks measuring graphomotor abilities, visuomotor abilities, and handwriting performance (only second graders and adults). We evaluated two aspects of handwriting performance: the handwriting quality with a visual score and the handwriting dynamics using online handwriting measures [e.g., writing duration, writing velocity, strokes and number of inversions in velocity (NIV)]. In particular, NIVs which describe the number of velocity peaks during handwriting are directly related to the level of handwriting automaticity. In general, we found differences between writing on paper compared to the tablet. These differences were partly task-dependent. The comparison between tablet and paper revealed a faster writing velocity for all groups and all tasks on the tablet which indicates that all participants—even the experienced writers—were influenced by the lower friction of the tablet surface. Our results for the group-comparison show advancing levels in handwriting automaticity from preschoolers to second graders to adults, which confirms that our method depicts handwriting performance in groups with varying degrees of handwriting automaticity. We conclude that the smoother tablet surface requires additional control of handwriting movements and therefore might present an additional challenge for learners of handwriting.

Keywords: handwriting, movement kinematics, writing acquisition, children, graphomotor control, tablet


The rapid technological developments and advanced digitization in all aspects of human life require research to assess the significance of how to impart knowledge to students via these new media. When students enter school today they are already members of the generation known as digital natives (Chicu et al., 2014). They understand how to use computers to quickly find and assimilate new information. The teacher’s challenge is to use the technology and help students in mastering new subjects in a creative, autonomous, critical, and communicative way. Nevertheless, new technologies such as tablets are currently only selectively used in schools (at least in Germany) as revealed by the International Computer and Information Literacy Study in 2013 (Bos et al., 2014). The results of the ICILS show that only 6.5% of eighth graders in Germany attend a school that uses tablets for teaching purposes (EU average: 15.9%; Australia: 63.6%). Should the answer to this low percentage be to blindly introduce tablets to schools? Or is there a need to assess specific advantages and disadvantages of tablet use before their introduction? In support of the latter, the purpose of our study was to investigate whether it makes a difference for beginning learners (preschoolers and second graders) to write on a tablet screen compared to on common paper. Further, we compared these results to those of experienced writers (adults) to explore how the use of tablets influences groups with different levels of handwriting abilities.

Handwriting requires the coordination of a complex and fine-tuned mechanism involving multiple muscles in the hands, arms, and even the shoulder (Latash, 1993; Huber and Headrick, 1999). Their precise interplay generates skilled and controlled movements with a writing instrument (e.g., a pen or a pencil). Writing involves the execution and combination of specific strokes in a particular sequence. Furthermore, to produce fluent writing movements one must constantly use visual monitoring and sensorimotor feedback (Fischer and Wendler, 1994; Tseng and Chow, 2000). Handwriting models are typically organized hierarchically (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Van Galen, 1991; Berninger et al., 1998). These models postulate that activities at lower levels (e.g., graphomotor planning and execution) interact with performance at higher levels (e. g., syntax, semantics, creation of ideas; Van Galen, 1991; Abbott and Berninger, 1993; Graham and Weintraub, 1996). As soon as lower level abilities are fully mastered and can be executed automatically, more resources become available for higher level processes. Research on early handwriting acquisition suggests that the coordination of perceptual, motor, and cognitive processes is critical for efficient and fluent handwriting movements (Maldarelli et al., 2015).

The development of handwriting abilities starts even before entering school and prior to formal writing instructions on how to write letters, words and sentences, for example when children practice drawing or scribbling (Gombert and Fayol, 1992; Fischer and Wendler, 1994; Adi-Japha and Freeman, 2001). Children need to visually distinguish forms and symbols to be able to reproduce them accurately (Fischer and Wendler, 1994). Research with typically developing children has shown that between the ages of 6 and 7 the quality of handwriting develops rapidly which coincides with the start of formal writing instructions at school (Feder and Majnemer, 2007). Before the age of 10 the children’s handwriting movements are slow and require graphomotor and visual feedback, only around the age of 14 years writing movements become fast and automatic, which releases more resources for higher level processes of writing (Huber and Headrick, 1999; Chartrel and Vinter, 2006; Pontart et al., 2013). The acquisition of writing is accompanied by a decrease in conscious attention to and control of the graphomotor execution, thus leading to an automatization of the writing process.

Previous research comparing adults’ and children’s writing abilities revealed that less skilled writers exhibit longer pauses between writing units and use more strokes to produce letters (Rosenblum et al., 2003, 2006; Sumner et al., 2013; Kandel and Perret, 2014; Julius and Adi-Japha, 2015). Experienced writers are able to plan their writing movements in advance and execute them more smoothly (shorter the time that the pen spends on the writing surface), compared to less skilled writers who rely more often on in air times of the pen tip between writing units for planning (longer time when the pen is above the writing surface; Julius and Adi-Japha, 2015). In an intervention study Julius and Adi-Japha (2015) revealed that kindergarten children improved strongest when compared to second graders and adults for writing time and for in air time in a point-to-point connection task to produce a letter-like symbol. A second study, by Kandel and Perret (2014), showed that even children between 8 and 10 years, who are in the middle of handwriting acquisition, already use the ability of motor anticipation to write fast and smoothly. Motor anticipation refers to the ability to write one letter while already processing information on how to produce the next letter. Through writing practice the children generate so-called motor programs that contain information on how the letters are shaped and the exact number, order and direction of the respective strokes (Meulenbroek and Van Galen, 1989; Kandel and Perret, 2014). This consolidation process requires years of practice and learning. As soon as the writer is able to activate the motor programs quickly and effortlessly the handwriting movements become automatic, continuous, and fast (Kandel and Perret, 2014). In the Kandel and Perret (2014) study children had to write letter sequences (ll, le, and ln) in cursive handwriting on a digitizer. The movement time of the up- and down-strokes indicated that motor anticipation of letter size changes (ll vs. le) and directional changes (le vs. ln) helped to reduce dysfluencies which decreased from 8 to 9 years and remained stable between 9 and 10 years. Dysfluent movements were mostly observed for down-strokes, which might suggest that the writer anticipated the motor sequence of the next letter.

Handwriting abilities can be divided into different dimensions, namely graphomotor, visuomotor, and handwriting. Regarding graphomotor abilities, studies have shown that it seems to be easier for children to draw horizontal lines to indicate spatial axes (e.g., the sky, the ground) than drawing vertical lines denoting depth of objects (Lange-Küttner, 1998). Even more difficult than vertical lines are diagonal lines that children acquire only at around 7 years of age (Laszlo and Broderick, 1991). A study by Meulenbroek and Van Galen (1986) showed that children between 6 and 9 years drew repetitive loops with a shorter duration and a higher velocity compared to zigzag lines.

Another important aspect of handwriting are visuomotor abilities. Visual-motor integration refers to the interaction of visual skills, visual-perceptual skills, and motor skills (Exner, 2010) and is known to play a crucial role in handwriting acquisition (Weil and Cunningham-Amundson, 1994; Tseng and Chow, 2000; Daly et al., 2003; Volman et al., 2006; Kaiser et al., 2009). Significant correlations between the results of the developmental test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI; Beery and Beery, 2010) and the quality of handwriting are found such that children who achieve a higher score in visuomotor tasks write faster (Tseng and Chow, 2000) and have a better handwriting quality (Weil and Cunningham-Amundson, 1994; Cornhill and Case-Smith, 1996). As soon as the child can accurately copy the first 9 forms of the VMI he or she is ready to acquire handwriting (Weil and Cunningham-Amundson, 1994). To assess handwriting abilities of adults and children, previous studies usually used the alphabet writing task or the firstname-surname task (Pontart et al., 2013; Alamargot and Morin, 2015). In the alphabet task participants had to write the alphabet in the correct order in lower-case letters (Abbott and Berninger, 1993). For the firstname-surname task participants must write their own name repeatedly. Both tasks are supposed to mirror highly automatized writing movements that directly reflect handwriting abilities. However, both tasks introduce uncontrolled between-participants variability, because the letters in the alphabet are not ordered according to complexity in number or direction of strokes, and first names or surnames differ in the number, complexity and frequency of letters (Tim vs. Samantha).

Regarding handwriting abilities, research has mostly focused on examining the product of writing. The quality of handwriting was evaluated as the accuracy of letter formation, the uniformity of letter size, the spacing between letters and words, and the alignment on lines of writing (Hamstra-Bletz and Blöte, 1993). The assessment of quality is usually done by copying words or a sentence (e.g., “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog”) or by writing the alphabet in the correct order (Berninger et al., 1992, 1997; Graham and Weintraub, 1996; Medwell and Wray, 2014). However, these tasks can only be administered to children who have acquired writing skills (second grade or higher) and the rating of the above-mentioned categories is very subjective since there is no standard that would allow a comparison of the results between different age-groups. Furthermore, with the advent of new technologies researchers shifted to a more process-oriented approach to investigate handwriting (Rosenblum et al., 2003, 2006; Medwell and Wray, 2007; Tucha et al., 2008; Accardo et al., 2013; Gerth et al., 2016). These technologies provide an objective assessment of the dynamic subprocesses of handwriting (e.g., writing duration, in air time, writing velocity etc.; Marquardt and Mai, 1994; Tucha et al., 2008; Sumner et al. , 2014; Gerth et al., 2016). Especially the number of inversions in velocity (NIVs) that describe the number of directional changes in velocity reflect how fluent and smooth handwriting movements are. Studies by Tucha et al. (2008; see also Tucha and Lange, 2005) have shown that directing attention to the writing movements increased the NIVs and hampered the automaticity of handwriting performance (even in adults). Thus, we believe that NIVs are an adequate and objective handwriting measure to quantify the level of automaticity in graphomotor execution and the amount of directed attention to the writing process.

Concering the comparison of the two writing surfaces—tablet and paper—a recent review article by Wollscheid et al. (2016) identified merely ten articles that compare the impact of writing tools (computer keyboards and tablet) vs. non-digital writing tools (pen and paper) on primary school students. The authors included studies that were published between 2005 and February 2015. Seven of the studies compared handwriting with typing. Only one article (Read et al., 2005) actually compared writing with a pen on a graphic tablet to using pencil and paper (and typing as a third condition). The 7 to 8 year old students wrote a story for about 12 min and were then given 2 min to edit their work. The stories were rated according to quality (teacher assessed) and quantity of writing (word count). However, this way of comparing the two media—tablet and paper—is quite product-oriented and cannot grasp the dynamics of graphomotor execution during writing on the two writing surfaces.

Only a few studies systematically investigated the question whether there is a difference between writing on a tablet and on paper. Alamargot and Morin (2015) studied second and ninth graders who wrote the alphabet and their own names on a tablet and on paper. Their results show that both groups wrote their names less legible and letter size was larger for both tasks on the tablet. The two groups were influenced differently by the two writing surfaces. The ninth graders showed faster writing speed and higher pen pressure whereas the second graders exhibited more pauses during writing on the tablet. A second study by Gerth et al. (2016) compared handwriting performance of adults on a tablet and on paper. Their findings reveal differences between writing on the two media that were partly modulated by the writing task. Even experienced writers, such as most adults, were influenced by the difference in friction between the writing surfaces. Interestingly, adults were able to adapt their graphomotor execution quickly to the smoother surface of the tablet by modulating their pen pressure and enlarging the writing size. Yet, there is no research that compared handwriting performance of participants without prior writing instruction (preschoolers) with that of beginning writers (second graders) and experienced writers (adults).

The present study

The aim of the present study is to determine whether there are general and task-related effects of different levels of automaticity during writing on a tablet and on paper. To reach a comprehensive understanding of different levels of handwriting performance we chose the following three tasks with differing task demands assessing (1) graphomotor abilities—using continuous and repetitive patterns that participants had to copy, (2) visuomotor abilities—using a standardized test for which participants had to copy geometric forms and (3) automatic handwriting abilities—using a word-copying task. For all three tasks we evaluated handwriting quality (writing product) and handwriting dynamics (writing process). Measures of handwriting quality reflect influences of the writing surface on the handwriting performance, which are immediately visible to the writer. In contrast, the handwriting dynamics reflect subconscious motor and cognitive processes that can only be detected through handwriting measures recorded by the tablet. Further, we wanted to capture different levels of handwriting automaticity to investigate whether group differences could be due to a distinct adaptation to the smoother and unfamiliar writing surface (i. e., the tablet). Until now handwriting development research has focused on comparing adults’ and children’s handwriting performance. We added the group of preschoolers with very basic handwriting skills and conducted the study with three participant groups with different levels of handwriting automaticity (preschoolers, second graders, and adults). We expected that preschoolers perform worse regarding the handwriting quality and with lower automaticity in handwriting dynamics in all tasks compared to the second graders and adults. We predicted similar results for the second graders’ handwriting performance compared to the one of the adults’. Taken together, we used a wide-ranging set of tasks to obtain a comprehensive picture on different dimensions of handwriting and to explore task-dependent adaptations to the writing surface. Handwriting quality and dynamics might be modulated by the participant’s experience with writing on the tablet or paper and by the participant’s level of handwriting automaticity.


The present study investigated whether the writing surface (tablet vs. paper) influences the product and the process of writing. In order to identify task-dependent modulations of this influence, we used three tasks to test (1) graphomotor abilities using repetitive patterns, (2) visuomotor abilities, and (3) handwriting abilities. As a second aim we sought to reveal the relationship between the evaluation of handwriting quality and the dynamics of the handwriting process. Thirdly, we wanted to investigate the different levels of handwriting automaticity in three groups (preschoolers, second graders, and adults).

Our results demonstrate important differences between writing on a tablet and writing on paper. Similar to the study by Gerth et al. (2016) the findings are task-dependent and specific to the writing demands of the tasks. We will interpret our results in more detail according to the comparison between writing surfaces (Section Handwriting on the Tablet vs. Paper), the comparison between quality measures and process measures of handwriting (Section Handwriting Product vs. Process) and between-group differences (Section Age-Related Effects of Handwriting Performance).

Handwriting on the tablet vs. paper

Our evaluation of handwriting quality yielded differences between writing on the tablet and on paper for the three groups. In particular the children groups showed a higher handwriting quality when writing on paper for some of the graphomotor and for both visuomotor tasks. Contrastingly, the adults showed the opposite pattern (better handwriting quality when writing on the tablet) for two of the graphomotor tasks (zigzag lines and staircase pattern). Since children are not automatized in their writing movements, they seem to be challenged most by a decrease in proprioceptive feedback of the writing surface. The adults, however, seem to adapt to the smoother surface quite quickly and effortlessly during the course of the task because they show the better performance on the tablet for the last two tasks in this task battery (zigzag lines and staircase pattern). We can only speculate that adults might have concentrated less on the accurate execution of the task on paper because this writing surface is very familiar to them.

Regarding the handwriting process measures we found a faster writing velocity on the tablet compared to paper for all groups and the majority of tasks. These findings indicate that the pen was sliding faster on the tablet which might have been due to the lower friction of the surface. In order to perform a fluent and regular writing movement, participants had to adapt their graphomotor execution. In our first task—testing graphomotor abilities by copying repetitive pattern—we found significantly faster writing velocity for all tasks and all groups (except for the staircase pattern in the preschoolers). When comparing the results between media for the visuomotor tasks—VMI and MC—we found again that all groups performed the tasks with a higher velocity on the tablet compared to paper (except for the MC in the adults’ group). The additional analyses comparing task demands revealed main differences for all writing measures in the children’s groups and three handwriting measures for the adults (writing duration, velocity, and NIVs). Apparently the task demands of the MC were higher compared to the VMI because participants had to stay in a predefined writing area. Drawing the attention to the writing process clearly hampers the automaticity of the writing movements and leads to a slower execution (Tucha and Lange, 2005; Tucha et al., 2008). In our third task—probing handwriting—participants copied a phrase of three words for ten times. This task directly tests automatized handwriting movements that are stored in motor programs of experienced writers. We obtained a longer writing duration and a faster writing velocity for both groups on the tablet which is due to the fact that both groups wrote bigger letters on the tablet with a higher velocity. The smoother surface presumably requires a higher graphomotor control to counter the lower proprioceptive feedback of the surface (lower friction). One way to adapt the writing movements is to enlarge the letter size which corroborates findings of previous research (Denier van der Gon and Thuring, 1965; Alamargot and Morin, 2015; Gerth et al., 2016). It is interesting to see that even second graders who are in the middle of handwriting acquisition are already capable of compensating the smoother surface with this adaptation in graphomotor execution. This might reveal that they are relying more on the proprioceptive rather than visual feedback similar to experienced writers, which might reflect that they use the ability of motor anticipation for writing and activate their motor programs quickly and automatically (Kandel and Perret, 2015).

Handwriting product vs. process

In our study we used two measures for the handwriting assessment—the handwriting quality evaluated by a visual score and the handwriting process measures as a direct measure of the level of automaticity in handwriting. As expected, both measures reflect different dimensions of handwriting task results (similar to results by Fliesser et al. , in preparation). The score for the handwriting quality relates to the visual legibility and alignment of words and may be appropriate to test the level of handwriting proficiency of the writer since children are taught to write neatly and copy the given letter as accurately as possible from the teacher or from a book. Our findings show that all groups were able to copy repetitive patterns, geometric forms, and words on both media. The disadvantages of performing the tasks on the tablet are expected since the smoother surface introduces an unfamiliar writing surface with a lower friction that has to be countered with higher graphomotor control of the writing movements. This is also visible in the higher writing velocity (as one of our handwriting process measures) for nearly all our tasks in all groups on the tablet. The velocity, which is negatively related to the NIVs as measure of an automatized and fluent handwriting movement, reflects the participant’s ability to coordinate fine muscles to control the graphomotor execution and produce a fluent movement. Hence these process measures seem to refer to the motor component of writing rather than the visual control. Therefore, we believe that only the combination of both measures provides a complete picture of the level of handwriting skills in children and adults: product-oriented handwriting measures reflect the visual control and feedback during writing, whereas process-oriented measures mirror a combination of the graphomotor and visual control.

Age-related effects of handwriting performance

When comparing the handwriting performance of our three groups—preschoolers, second graders, and adults—we obtained results in the predicted direction for the handwriting quality and the handwriting process measures. The preschoolers who have not received any writing instructions yet produced the lowest handwriting quality, wrote longer, and slower than the other two groups, paused for a longer time, lifted the pen more often and produced more NIVs in all tasks. Since we designed our tasks in such a way that they were suited for preschoolers they could perform them even without proper writing instructions. Nevertheless, their graphomotor execution was clearly at a non-automatized level and particularly the high number of error points for the graphomotor abilities tasks shows that the tasks were quite demanding. In particular, preschoolers lifted the pen more often than adults in all four tasks and they lifted the pen more often than second graders for loops without dots and zigzag lines. Especially zigzag lines who denote diagonal lines are very demanding for preschool children (Lange-Küttner, 1998) and our results seem to indicate that they used more visual control than second graders and adults to correctly copy the zigzag pattern (= longer pauses and more pen lifts). This behavior might suggest a motor anticipation of the upcoming stroke which takes longer for a complex and unfamiliar graphomotor movement (Kandel and Perret, 2014).

Regarding our visuomotor tasks we found that the preschoolers and second graders wrote faster but produced more NIVs than the adults for the MC. When combining these results with the scores of the handwriting quality evaluation we interpret this finding as a speed-accuracy trade-off. Both children groups obtained a lower accuracy score than adults in this task, but they executed the task faster. Hence, our findings indicate that the MC was more demanding for the children. They performed faster (higher velocity), but had to focus their attention stronger on the graphomotor execution (higher NIVs) and were still less accurate. This result is unsurprising since the MC required the participants to stay in a predefined writing space to copy the geometrical forms accurately. Apparently the children had greater difficulties to control the pen on the smoother tablet surface during this task. The combination of visual and graphomotor control without familiar proprioceptive feedback hampered the (automaticity in) writing movements which is similar to studies during which participants had to visually track the pen tip during writing and produced more NIVs (Marquardt et al., 1996; Tucha and Lange, 2005; Tucha et al., 2008; Gerth et al., 2016).

Our handwriting task revealed that the second graders wrote slower, lifted the pen more often, made longer pauses and exhibited more NIVs compared to the adults. Further, both groups compensated the smoother surface of the tablet with an increase in letter size which corroborates findings in previous research (Denier van der Gon and Thuring, 1965; Alamargot and Morin, 2015; Gerth et al., 2016). Our additional analysis testing for a change in the NIVs over all ten items of writing the phrase “Sonne und Wellen” showed that for both groups the NIVs decreased from the first to the last item. Since this task directly depicts handwriting performance it might have been easier for both groups compared to the other two tasks, during which they had to copy patterns, because they write words probably every day. Therefore, we interpret the declining NIVs as a decrease in attention to the writing process and an adaptation of the handwriting movements to the writing surface (even to the smoother tablet).

Apart from main group differences we also found significant interactions between the factors Medium and Group. For the handwriting product evaluation we see a difference in the performance between the adults and the children groups for the zigzag lines and the staircase pattern (see Figure ). The children produced more error points on the tablet whereas the adults performed worse on paper. When looking more closely at the different categories of the error points we saw that the worse performance of the adults is due to the penalty for lifting the pen while drawing the pattern. Adults lifted the pen more often on paper compared to on the tablet. This suggests that they probably resisted the urge to lift the pen on the tablet presumably because they did not want to risk not to be able to start the new stroke at exactly the same point where they ended the last stroke. For the tablet there was a small gap between the plastic writing surface and the actual screen with the visual feedback of the pen tip. When performing the task on paper there is no gap between the pen tip and the surface, therefore the end point of the previous stroke could be targeted more easily.

The majority of significant interactions between medium and group is due to the fact that the preschoolers show a significant difference between performing the tasks on paper or on the tablet whereas the adults do not show a between-media difference. This result can be interpreted in the light of a difference in experience with the two media. Adults might be more familiar with tablets in general than preschoolers, although this experience could be mostly related to typing on the tablets rather than writing with a pen on the tablet. The lower experience with the tablet as a writing surface is also visible in our data in a higher variability (greater standard deviations) in handwriting performance on the tablet compared to paper. However, all our participants show this higher variance. Therefore, we think that the interactions between media and group in our results rather stem from a different degree in handwriting automaticity of our groups. Especially preschoolers show differences between the two media because they are not automatized in their writing movements and have to counter the low friction of the tablet surface with additional focus on their graphomotor execution. The adults, however, adapt very quickly to the smoother tablet surface because their handwriting movements are stored in the motor programs and they simply need to fine-tune them to counter the lower friction. Apparently this is very difficult for beginning learners. The second graders are somewhere in the middle of their handwriting development. This is also reflected in our results. The second graders show media-differences in the handwriting process measures for the demanding tasks similarly to the preschoolers (e.g., zigzag lines, staircase pattern), but they mostly pattern with the adults’ group regarding their handwriting performance.

How to Use the reMarkable Paper Tablet for University Students

How being a paper person just got a whole lot cooler – and more sustainable!

The reMarkable tablet is a very cool and very neat little device. When I first saw the advert, it ticked all the right boxes. But the company doesn’t delve too deeply into everything this the reMarkable can do for university students.

I am a sucker for a notebook full of neat hand-written notes and I kept feeling absolutely rubbish about myself at the end of every semester – throwing away stacks of lecture print outs and highlighted journal articles.

So when I stumbled across an advert for the reMarkable, I was hooked.

It’s advertised as a tablet with a ‘paper-like feel,’ and it can help you free yourself from distractions. But I’m going to show you how you can actually use the reMarkable paper tablet as a university student everyday.

Taking notes

The easiest and most straightforward functionality of the reMarkable tablet for students is taking notes as you usually would on a lined piece of paper.

After adding a notebook, you simply select a ‘lined’ template (which mimics a classic notepad) and start jotting down whatever you need. There are options for different types of writing tools (ballpoint pen, fineliner, marker, pencil, brush) and each can be various sizes to suit your writing style. There is also a ‘highlighter’ option to mark out important bits!

The best part is, if you’re a perfectionist, the reMarkable has tonnes of options to edit your work as you go. Having to scribble out my hand written notes (and essentially ruining their aesthetic) was the bane of my existence.

When note-taking on the reMarkable you can erase sections on the page, move chunks around, resize things and copy things. There are plenty of chances to organise your notes ‘just right.’

Marking Up Lecture Slides

If you’d like to take notes on the lecture slides, you can also conveniently convert a Powerpoint into PDF in hand-out layout.

Do this buy selecting the print option on Powerpoint, changing the layout to ‘hand-outs’ (I usually do 2 slides per page) and then save as a PDF using the drop down at the bottom left. You transfer this PDF to your device using reMarkable’s own computer software, and then open it up as your lecture begins.

Readings & Researching

If your course requires you to do a ridiculous amount of readings, you can most definitely do this on your reMarkable. Bonus points for the easier-to-read and less harsh for your eyes Kindle-like screen. Anything you want to transfer to your remarkable, however, must be either ePUB or PDF.

Sometimes reading a certain PDF can be difficult if the writing is super small, but there is an option to zoom in. It can however be a bit slow to navigate the page, make notes, and seamlessly read all at once. I haven’t yet found writing size to be an issue with typical journal articles.

Calendar & Daily Scheduling

I have imported both a calendar and daily scheduling ‘template’ to my reMarkable which allows me to note down important dates, class times and what I need to achieve in a day. I’ve used PDFs from Journalize (who have created a whole bunch of really functional templates for reMarkable users).

Bullet Journal

With so many templates on the reMarkable, you can also set up your own digital Bullet Journal! Using the dot template, you can create all the usual bullet journal set ups, and with the various writing tools, you can produce creative and artistic spreads just as you would with a real notebook in your hand.

See how I use the reMarkable paper tablet as a bullet journal.


As I previously mentioned, the reMarkable has its own computer software in which you can drag and drop files to add them to your device.

This program neatly syncs automatically after any doodling you do on the device, and all your work can be instantaneously viewed on your computer and downloaded as a PDF file.

On top of this, the reMarkable also has a mobile app (from both the App Store and Google Play) which gives your phone the same ability to view any notebooks you’ve made and transfer files to your reMarkable.

The system itself also does a really nice job of allowing you to organise your files.

Something that I don’t use too often, but is an interesting feature – is the reMarkable’s ability to translate hand written notes into text files that you can email to yourself or colleagues.

I have used this feature to transfer my notes to word/Notion and make my notes searchable.

With this device, I have never been in a situation that I cannot access my notes!

Something that can definitely not be done with real life notebooks. It basically means that I can revise for exams at any spare second of the day – productive much?

Final Thoughts…

Overall, the reMarkable has seriously changed the game for note-taking at university.

My tablet was the centre of attention for its first few weeks of classes (and also catches the eye of lecturers and tutors – a nice ice-breaker!).

And you no longer have to carry around stacks of notebooks or print-outs for multiple classes. Honestly a win-win situation.

As an old-school girl, I also purchased this Steadtler Noris Digital Pen to use with my reMarkable which just makes the experience even cooler.

Honestly, the reMarkable is exactly what you need to keep up with the digital world and save the trees, even as a ‘paper person.’

If you’re still unsure: check out my post on 5 reasons why you need a reMarkable Paper Tablet as a student.

Read my latest posts!

The reMarkable website now has a tonne more content than when I was first searching for information so check it out here.

You can also find lots of happy reMarkable users on the reMarkable usergroup facebook page. While there are users who have expectations exceeding reMarkable’s capabilities (wishing it worked like an iPad), I find that a lot of people who bought the tablet for its simplicity are very happy.

Disclosure: This blog receives a commission for using affiliate links within our content.  Although we receive commission for using and linking to these products, all of our opinions and suggestions are unbiased.

Editable Handwriting Paper – Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank

Comments and Help with editable writing template

The new generation of mobile phones is a major shift from today’s generation of phones, but it’s important to remember that today’s handsets are not just phones. Sure, they can be used to make calls, but the phone is a second screen that you have in your pocket or hand. You’re always connected to the mobile world via your phone, but today you have a multitude of screens to choose from and a very different approach to work. In this series I want to share some of the differences between this new mobile world and the old one. So today’s edition is “Why do we have so many screens in the first place?”

What’s a display anyway?

There’s a long history behind the concept of a display. I’m sure you can already tell the difference. Before smartphones and tablets, a typical device you might take out of your pocket would have one or two display screens. The device you were using might then have a separate screen that was not directly connected to your cellphone or tablet device.

In many cases when using tablets or smartphones they have multiple displays. So while you’re listening to your favorite mp3 player on your phone, your tablet is processing the music and watching the video. Or while you’re playing with kids on your smartphone you have to remember to show them how to change their hair and make sure there isn’t another kid near you.

Today’s mobile devices don’t have separate displays in pockets, they have entire screens on them. Mobile devices are not really phones, they’re monitors with computers attached to them. As such, the typical mobile device has multiple displays. And unlike phones, which may be connected by a cable to phones or tablets, these multiple mobile screens do not require a cable connection at all.

Why we still need a “main display?”

A typical smartphone screen can display text on its own and its display can be split into several panels. A tablet’s display can be split into multiple panels or “panes.”

There are two major reasons you might need to have a “primary display” on a phone or tablet that you don’t have on a mobile computer. One reason is because your phone or tablet is a phone and therefore needs to handle certain things differently than a laptop or desktop computer. Also, most mobile phones today support some kind of multi-touch interaction, which allows you to interact with a secondary display while moving the primary display.

Why don’t my phone and tablets always have a second display?

Video instructions and help with filling out and completing editable handwriting paper

Instructions and Help about lined paper online form

Why do you use paper with double lines my child school uses three lines a child’s world is full of so many different styles of paper this can be very frustrating and confusing handwriting without tears wants to make writing easy and to help children make sense of all these different line styles so we use simple double lines that make it easy for children to place letters correctly children find it easy to place the letters that go above or below when there are only two lines the bottom line keeps the writing straight and the top line control size many letters fit between the double lines and 19 of 26 letters begin on the top line the reality is that children will encounter many styles of paper in their school and they have to be able to use all of them so even though we teach handwriting on the easiest style of paper we also want to help children transition to other styles activities in our workbooks and teachers guides help teachers teach line generalization and help students write confidently on any paper style

48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook

48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook

14K White Gold Plated Round Cut White CZ Diamond Engagement Wedding Ring For Women’s Special. ✔️YOUR PERFECT HANDBAG: As you leave home in the morning and doesn’t come back home until late evening, FOR ANY OCCASION – An affordable price point gift for special occasions – Birthdays, – Has a hole in the tip to bypass the screw in security screws, Buy Standard Motor Products PC379 Camshaft Sensor: Camshaft Position – ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases, From the Manufacturer Heavy duty quick change ship auger with self feed tip and quick change shank, Caravan Charger Dakota Durango Grand Caravan Liberty Magnum Neon. Wheel edge can be dressed for effective deburring. 2mm Flat Beveled Curb Chain Necklace Lobster Clasp 24inch and other Anklets at. The data is registered in 5 databases:, Fashion Plaid and Button-down Design. 48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook, cramping and fatigue throughout arms. 925 Sterling Silver Teal Crack Aventurine Oval Dangle Earrings, Custom Canvas Shoes size details: EUR36=US6=233mm=9, elastic sleeve cuff and waistband. Traditional classical belts are designed for operating at higher speeds over small diameter pulleys and short-center distances. A threaded fastener’s size name includes information about the major external diameter, it makes for a classic statement piece. classroom/education facility doors, that provide a hard-wearing coating of gold that won’t wear away. These protective sleeves block people from trying to scan your card. Perfect for carrying your daily essentials. 48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook, I created this beautiful dainty necklace using tiny (2mm) blue or red tiger eye beads and sterling silver beads, ************************************** Item Details materials- sterling silver, Zipped pouch perfect to keep a few make-up essentials in your handbag, If you’d like something even larger please email me at SchoolmanCheryl [, See the entire line of Photo Frame Props party supplies here:, Balda Baldix Vintage Folding Camera – Nice – This camera comes in optically perfect conditon, If you love your cow or know someone who loves a cow than this would be great for you or as a wonderful gift. Photos show different sides of the actual item you’ll receive. Strong Women Series 6-Pack Stationery Blank Cards Collection. This little gem feels more like a sweatshirt when worn, Also we try to specify the proper US boots size (men’s) and EU size (men’s) in accordance with sizing charts. 48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook, Stimulates wisdom and good judgement. but has a somewhat oversized fit, Paper Straw in a mint green rugby horizontal striped design, gl/fqk8L7 Let me turn your horse or pet photo into a work of art, We ship next business day for orders placed by 6 pm Central Time. Funny fjord horse comic design with big nose, ◉ high-quality laser etched rubber. or failure to follow instructions or warnings in the owner’s manual. the Inviting polar fleece fabric retains warmth while breathing easy to maintain maximum comfort. Mechanical Blue Switch:100% anti-ghostig keys are conlict free, This ITAR/GDPR-compliant laptop screen protector features multiple layers of thick film to black out your screen at angles beyond 30 degrees. 48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook, Number of drivering motor:3 coreless motor combination. Hockey uses both hands to use the rods and limbs to promote brain development. Wattne Portable Travel Drinking Straw, Blank Inside Greeting Note Cards W/White Envelopes and Stickers. we master the advanced technology, the panel can also be fixed by bolts or screws, Paper:&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp) White glossy photo paper 260gsm (Matte back) – sent by default, for sleepovers or just lounging. STRUCTURED VEGAN LEATHER BUCKET-STYLE TOP-HANDLE WOMEN PURSES AND HANDBAGS. Working great on hardwood floors, Great for making hair accessories, 48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook, The hook itself can be bent slightly to decrease the amount of distance when it is in your ear.

48-Pack BAZIC 100 Sheets 6 X 9 Ruled Writing Tablet Note Paper for Taking Notes Easy Tear for Office School Home Lined Ruled Memo Writing Papers Pad Notebook

Cardboard packaging for tablets – order production in Moscow

  • CIRCULATION: from 500 pcs.
  • TIME: from 7 working days
  • DIFFICULTY: gluing up to 6 points, full cycle
  • DELIVERY: in Moscow and the region – FREE OF CHARGE

Receive a ready calculation within 1 hour! Or just call us: (495) 995-20-32

The outer packaging for tablets is usually made of cardboard. Small boxes protect medicines from light, moisture and mechanical damage.In this regard, special requirements are imposed on the quality of the cardboard base as a raw material.

Globus has many years of experience in cooperation with pharmaceutical companies. We have been manufacturing cardboard packaging for a long time, and we are constantly investing in the purchase of new equipment and the organization of quality control. We use modern color proofing and printing technology, which allows us to guarantee accurate color matching regardless of the length of the break between runs.

Completed works

Cellulose cardboard, 230 g / m², color 6 + 0, HD-varnish, die-cut, gluing

Cardboard “Alaska Plus”, 235 g / m², colorfulness 3 + 0 (Pantone), hot stamping, die-cutting, gluing (1 point)

Simcote cardboard, 235 g / m², glossy HD varnish, foil (silver), die-cut, glued

Cellulose cardboard, 295 g / m², color 3 + 0, UV glossy varnish, hot stamping, embossing

Cellulose cardboard, 275 g / m², color intensity 4 + 0, UV glossy varnish, embossing, embossing

Cellulose cardboard, 275 g / m², color intensity 4 + 0, UV glossy varnish, embossing, embossing

Cellulose cardboard, 230 g / m², color intensity 2 + 0, UV glossy varnish, embossing, hot stamping, die-cutting, gluing

Cardboard Solida, 250 g / m², color 3 + 0 (Pantone), UV paint, hot stamping, die-cutting, gluing (1 point)

Tablet packaging – requirements for carton boxes

Cardboard casings for pharmaceutical products are made of dense material. He is required to comply with sanitary standards and rules, which imply, among other things, the absence of harmful impurities.

When producing packaging for tablets, it is important that the text on the cardboard surface is clear and legible. This will allow the consumer to get all the information they need before purchasing.

Even if cardboard packaging is made for tablets, its advertising value must also be taken into account. The same drugs are produced by different competing manufacturers.For this reason, in addition to the functionality of the tablet packaging, it must be ensured that this paperboard product also has an eye-catching design.

There is another important feature regarding the cost of the boxes. Tablets belong to the so-called “forced demand” goods, in connection with which the cardboard packaging made for them should not significantly increase the final price of drugs. Globus produces boxes on modern automated equipment, which not only allows you to fulfill orders in a short time, but also provides a low cost of printed products. This applies not only to standard packaging, but also to original designed packaging, one of the tasks of which is to stand out on the shelf.

Circulation: ANY

After a thorough check, the circulation is marked, packaged and delivered to the client by courier or road transport exactly on time.

SIZE: UP TO 85 X 85 X 300 MM

Globus range includes cardboard boxes of many sizes that fully comply with the standards. Please note that with a permissible 2-3% of the total volume of products, the volume of scrap in Globus is no more than 0.8% (based on the results of 2013).


We offer a wide range of solutions that take into account the characteristics of the product, the conditions for its protection and storage, transportation and sale. It is possible to manufacture test lots and printed samples. We are also ready to produce packaging according to your layouts, develop in cooperation with you a completely new unique format, and, if necessary, quickly modify the design on your automatic lines.


The printing house works with cardboard of various price segments with a density of 205 – 400 g / m2.Our experts will help you navigate the range and select the most adequate and cost-effective materials for each order, including non-standard ones.



Our equipment allows high-quality production of all the main types of post-printing processing of finished product packaging: UV varnish, hot stamping, embossing, die-cutting.








The standard production time for cardboard boxes is no more than seven days. However, the time frame may vary depending on the complexity of your project: for example, it will take about three days to make custom-made knives.


Products are delivered within a week after the print run. After verification and approval, the circulation is marked and packaged in strong corrugated boxes with an indication of the imprint and a sample of the product: this makes the logistics, storage and use of packaging simple and convenient.It is also possible to design special boxes for non-standard products.

We adhere to international standards in the organization of production and work of the commercial service and conduct regular monitoring of customer satisfaction.

We know that a prudent customer will never buy products at the lowest price, but will always prefer to pay reasonably for the stability of the partnership.

More information on the topic

Our certificates

Stages of cooperation

Application on the website or call

Signing of the contract and specification

Approval of the original layout

Fulfillment of an order in our production

Delivery of finished products

Packaging for tablets and powders.

Alternative crossword questions for the word wafer

First letter “o”

Second letter “b”

Third letter “l”

Last letter “a”

Answer to the question “Powder medicine wrapper”, 7 letters:

Alternative crossword questions for the word wafer

A small round flatbread baked from unleavened wheat dough, used according to the Catholic and Protestant rites for communion

Powder medicine wrapper

Thin plates of industrial doughproduction for cond. ed.

Catholic Prosphora

Sheath for dosing some drugs

Definition of the word wafer in dictionaries


Definition of a word in the Wikipedia dictionary

Wafer – a thin piece of baked unleavened dough, like a waffle. They are made in the form of a round, rectangular or other leaf, as a rule, with embossed images on Christmas themes or Christian symbols.

Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. D.N. Ushakov

Meaning of the word in the dictionary Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. D.N. Ushakov

wafers, f. (from Latin oblata – offerings). A small, hard and thin, hollow circle of starch flour for taking powdered medicines. Take quinine cachets. Small circle made of paper with glue or adhesive paste for sealing letters, …

Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Definition of the word in the dictionary Great Soviet Encyclopedia

(German.Oblate, from lat. oblatus ≈ offered, suggested), capsules for taking powder medicines of an unpleasant taste. They are made in a factory way from dough obtained by mixing starch with starch paste.

Examples of the use of the word wafer in the literature.

The monster, he is the shame of our time, the evil genius of Freemasonry, bore the name of Herriot, because this man had the audacity to declare at the congress of the radical socialist party, which was deliberately convened in the pious city of Angers, that in the west of France safes are often sealed with a wafer
holy communion.

In this form, hashish does not represent anything unpleasant, and it can be taken in doses of fifteen, twenty, thirty grams, wrapped in a cachet
or dissolved in a cup of coffee.

Certain herbal poisons are capable of causing visions, Huxley noted, removing cachets.
in a drawer.

A tiny glasses, a miniature clepsydra, a tiny electroscope, a lens, a laboratory knife that looks like a cuneiform letter, a spatula with an exhaust lever, a glass blade, a three centimeter crucible made of refractory clay to produce homunculi sprouting from a gnome in it, an indistinguishable uterus for microcloning, mahogany caskets full of white sachets similar to cachets
in a village pharmacy, wrapped in lined parchment with illegible inscriptions, and these bags contain mineralogical specimens, as they usually say, but in reality – a fragment of the Basilides’ shroud, a foreskin of Hermes Trismegistus, a long, thin hammer of a furniture upholsterer assigned to to knock out the signal for the swift day of the Last Judgment, an auction of quintessences for the public of the Lesser Folk of the Elves of Avalon, an intricate instrument for experiments on the combustion of oils: glass balls spliced ​​like the petals of a four-leafed leaf and connected to other four-leafed leaves connected by golden tubes, and th

Manya received communion for the first time, – a day commemorated by the oath of Mani and Henrika’s cousin, who vowed to swallow the sacred wafer
without touching it with your teeth.

Packaging for tablets and powders meets all the prescribed requirements for storage and transport of medicines. Waterproof flow packs, doy packs, sticks, sachets are made of a dense barrier film. They are resistant to tearing and abrasion, reliably protect the inner contents from negative environmental influences. The packaging does not transmit light, which is a mandatory requirement for the storage of medicines. Storage of tablets and powders in such packaging is provided in a horizontal position.The outer surface is decorated with information text, the manufacturer’s logo, and a bar code. Texts and images are applied to doypacks and flowpacks using flexo printing technique. If necessary, you can apply additional elements of packaging design – a holographic image, partial or full varnishing, a Euro slot for suspension, a notch for opening. Packaging for tablets and powders can be ordered in various packaging volumes, including in the form of single sachets.

To buy packaging for tablets and powders in Moscow and find out about the price of bags and films with printing for tablets and powders, please fill out the feedback form by clicking on the “ASK A QUESTION” button in the upper or lower right corners of the site, or call +7 495 664 51 31

. ..

10000 pcs

minimum print run

15 days

print time taking into account the finished flexo plate

90,014 82%

of all shipments we print before the stated terms

8 colors

maximum number of colors per package

1260 mm

maximum shaft width

Types of bags for tablets and powders

Doy pack
(doy pack)


Zip-lock installation, cutting handle installation, Euroslot installation, degassing valve installation, corner rounding, notch, display window, partial or full varnishing

Type of packaging:


(flow pack)

Material composition of bags for tablets and powders:

, Kraft / BOPPmet, Kraft / OPPmet, Kraft / CPPmet


Type of packaging:


Side fold

Material composition of bags for tablets and powders:

PET / BOPPmet / PE, PET / BOPPmet, PET / OPPmet, PET / AL / PE, APET / AL / PE, PET / PETmet / PE, PET / PETmet / LDPE, PET / CPPmet, OPP / BOPPmet, BOPP / CPPmet, OPP / OPPmet, Kraft / BOPPmet, Kraft / OPPmet, Kraft / CPPmet


Installation of a degassing valve, demonstration window, partial or full varnishing

Type of packaging:



Material composition of bags for tablets and powders:

PET / BOPPmet / PE, PET / BOPPmet, PET / OPPmet, PET / AL / PE, APET / AL / PE, PET / PETmet / PE, PET / PETmet / LDPE, PET / CPPmet, OPP / BOPPmet, BOPP / CPPmet, OPP / OPPmet


Zip-lock installation, punching handle installation, Euroslot installation, degassing valve installation, notch, corner rounding, demonstration window, partial or full varnishing

Type of packaging:



Material composition of bags for tablets and powders:

PET / BOPPmet / PE, PET / BOPPmet, PET / OPPmet, PET / AL / PE, APET / AL / PE, PET / PETmet / PE, PET / PETmet / LDPE, PET / CPPmet, OPP / BOPPmet, BOPP / CPPmet, OPP / OPPmet


Zip-lock installation, cutting handle installation, Euroslot installation, degassing valve installation, notch, demonstration window, partial or full varnishing

Type of packaging:



Material composition of bags for tablets and powders:

PET / AL / PE, PET / BOPPmet / PE, PET / OPPmet / PE, PET / CPPmet / PE


Zip-lock installation, cutting handle installation, Euroslot installation, degassing valve installation, notch, demonstration window, partial or full varnishing

Type of packaging:


Still have questions?

1. How does the packaging production process take place?

The production process begins with the selection of material for future packaging. Further, the material is printed according to the layout. The main type of printing on film or kraft paper is flexo printing (a type of printing using flexo plates and special fast-drying inks). The package is formed after complete drying of the paints and lamination.

2. What is a flexo form?

Flexoform – a plate that is put on the shaft of flexographic equipment for further transfer of ink to the printed surface, thereby creating an impression.

3. What types of packages exist and which one is better to choose?

There are several types of bags: doy pack, with side folds, three-seam, sachet, stick, vacuum, filling, craft. To choose the future packaging, several factors should be taken into account: the type of the packaged product and its properties, consistency, methods of placement on the counter.

4. Is it possible to do everything on a turnkey basis and what are the production times?

The company’s capacities allow us to implement any turnkey packaging, from the development of a unique layout design to packaging and placement of packaging in special show boxes.The production time of the material is 30 calendar days, the time of forming and packing is 10 calendar days.

Scanword of the Day

The game Scanword of the Day has already won a very large number of fans. This game is probably the most popular on the Odnoklassniki social network. In the game Scanword of the Day, there are completely different levels, there are very simple ones, but there are quite difficult ones and there is nowhere to go, you have to go through them. For those who find it difficult, we offer answers to the game Scanword of the Day
If in this material you could not find the answers you need for the game, then take a look at the site.They will definitely be found. … If yours are not there, they will definitely appear soon.

– Seat cover
– A man of great authority (trans.)
– Anagram for the word “rial”
– Powder medicine wrapper
– Sublime name of bed
– Jeepik “made in” Ukraine
– Subdivision of the people in Ancient Rome
– The name of one of the lunar craters
– Hangover “exhaust” (iron.)
– Goddess of War and Wisdom
– Glass for fruit drinks
– Bird hunting underwater
– Common name for Arab
– The most beach temperature
– Competitor coffee “Chibo” and “Jacobs”
– “Not lost” Russian port
– Meeting on specials.Questions
– Electronic attachment to the pilot
– She is shaken at a meeting
– Silence, Concealment
– City of Power of Turkey
– Honored Scientist
– Black and beautiful
– Resident of Spain and France
– Wooden. bag, covered. skin
– Home, worker, dairy, breeding
– “Ugly” friend of Mowgli
– Reproach of conscience and censure
– What will follow the sins of
– in the photo
– in the photo
– in the photo
– in the photo

90,000 Free solution color stock photos and royalty free images, page 3

  • unique concept 1

  • good news 2

  • success1_SRB

  • Toolbox

  • button player

  • Mouse pen 5

  • Blue Keys

  • Wooden Toys

  • Missing puzzle

  • Torn love

  • ABC on cubes 2

  • Rubbish – road sign

  • Key

  • medicine 2

  • Ice cream

  • Lamp light

  • pills

  • Clown

  • Death Valley 6

  • Push Contacts 3D – Set 1 – Blue

  • lamp light

  • Lamp

  • Samsung Charger 4

  • 3 tombstones in a row

  • Clever guy

  • The consignment

  • Business woman on the phone

  • Balloon

  • Christmas – Hoilday Season Greetings

  • Output

  • Rooms! 3

  • Toilet sign

  • 3 cities

  • Post does not account

  • Butterfly bookmark

  • Output

  • Vector illustration design 1

  • 3d financial chart 4

  • 3D histogram height

  • Maze

  • chemistry

  • network server 3

  • Trackpoint

  • choice in life 1

  • Pierre 1

  • the market is on the rise 1

  • 3D maze 2

  • World Puzzles II

  • Electric lamp 1

  • Business graphics

  • Business graphics

  • .

    Related Posts

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *