Reading audiobooks is still reading.
If you say you read an audiobook you don't have to "correct" yourself. I'd argue that you /shouldn't/, that you'd get less correct.
There's no need to say "well no I didn't read it" if it was an audiobook. There's no need to put "reading" in scare quotes.
It's reading just as much as reading print is.
I know there are worse problems, but it sucks having my favored reading format denigrated by sighted people, even to the point of them denying it's "real."
@bright_helpings tbh im not sure why the verb matters so much? i wouldn't say i read a video (although thinking about it, a genetic verb for "consumed media" would be nice).
does anyone really put more meaning behind it than just semantics?
For the avoidance of doubt (I think I've just been softblocked over this??), I am not saying that visual and aural reading are identical. As a partially-sighted person with typical hearing, I find one modality much easier than the other! I'm not making a point about sensory input. You can prefer one to the other! That's fine! This is a call to action, to stop saying and to watch out for others saying that audiobooks aren't "real" or don't "count" or are somehow inferior to print. That's all.
Moon joy
tebicat, tautographer