This is frightening. It's amazing how much the public is addicted to definitions, rather than meanings ( yes, there is a difference).
The codex (paged book) was better than the scroll, because it was a better physical medium. In my view, the scrolling book has hit back with digital technology.
Ralph's statement is very accurate. In the real world, I stand a lanky 6'4" and my vision strains. Even so, It would be an uncomfortable to try to navigate, physically through a scroll of paper once it became longer than 3 or 4 feet long ( Print out a webpage , and you see this can easily happen). on the other hand flipping a page of a book back and forth is a piece of cake. Somehow people believe that this would hold true in every "universe"; it is not the case.
The idea of having to click to a new page—or reach up to the screen to move to the next page—sounds awful.
To me is the idea of trying to EMULATE this book thing that sounds awful. The key point is that a "page view" is really like an animation-cell / keyhole hybrid and based in fixed dimensions. Even if the "look and feel" of flipping were to be perfectly emulated , the "feel and function" simply cannot especially when taking into consideration varying screen sizes available. Of course, whne the feel and function don't work people will blame the graphic/layout for it...ugh! There is the issue of dolling out per page content too. if a click still a "click" ( server requests), for example, if not is is optimized.. that is what if in my screen I need 4 flips to view an html page... but as a user I load view the first two flips and get bored and leave.. did you make me d/l 4 flips of a page I only needed/wanted to see 2 flips of for nothing? Essentially the argument in a page/site except converted to flip/page.
Really the best solution I have ever found to this was the "page up/ down" keys. I am surprised it is so under utilized in UIs.