Reading E-Books Takes Longer Than Reading Paper Books

Hugh Pickens writes "PC World reports on a study showing that reading from a printed book — versus an e-book on any of the three tested devices, an iPad, Kindle 2, and PC — was a faster experience to a significant degree. Readers measured on the iPad reported reading speeds, on average, of 6.2 percent slower than their print-reading counterparts, while readers on the Kindle 2 clocked in at 10.7 percent slower. Jacob Nielsen had each participant read a short story by Ernest Hemingway. Each participant was timed, then quizzed to determine their comprehension and understanding of what they just read. Nielsen also surveyed users' satisfaction levels after operating each device (or page). For user satisfaction, the iPad, Kindle, and book all scored relatively equally at 5.8, 5.7, and 5.6 on a one-to-seven ranking scale (seven representing the best experience). The PC, however, did not fare so well, getting a usability score of 3.6."

Not statistically significant

[EvanED]

Way to mention the results aren't actually statistically significant:

The iPad measured at 6.2% lower reading speed than the printed book, whereas the Kindle measured at 10.7% slower than print. However, the difference between the two devices was not statistically significant because of the data's fairly high variability.

(Emph. mine)

Re:Not statistically significant

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to mention that some of the results are actually statistically significant:

The difference between the two devices was not statistically significant.

(Emph. mine)

Re:Not statistically significant

[commodore64_love]

Also I suspect a good portion of those people were old and probably wasted a lot of time saying, "Where's the damn next button on this newfangled gadget?"

I don't notice any difference in reading speed whether I'm using a book or e-book. But then I grew up reading text on computers (like Zork and online forums), so it feels perfectly natural to me. Plus the e-book is a lot lighter and less muscle-straining than a 600-page tome.

Re:Flawed Study?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I think that the reader should be required to different read works of similar length and difficulty on each device. The reader should also have a break in between each reading. The order that the devices are being used in, and the piece being read on each device could be randomized. They should also be required to answer questions about the work to determine how well they understood what they read.

The humorous thing is that nearly all of these points were addressed in the second link of the summary. I guess we know where you'd rank on the reading comprehension part of the test.

Re:Out of 7 ?

[Blink Tag]

You've encountered seven point scales (often called Likert scales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale [wikipedia.org] ) in the past. [Please select the best answer]

- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Somewhat disagree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Somewhat agree
- Agree
- Strongly agree

Re:you cannot jump 30-pages

[TheRaven64]

You can't? The only eInk device that I'm familiar with is my iLiad, which has a flip switch for turning the pages. If you flick it, you turn one page, if you hold it, you turn 5. Turning 30 is relatively easy. There's also a progress bar along the bottom, and you can just tap in the middle of it to jump a significant distance. It's not as fast as jumping to a specific page in a book, but it's pretty fast. The user interface on the iLiad is pretty poor, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't faster on other devices.

Re:Not statistically significant

[justinlee37]

It wasn't an assumption; the OP clearly prefaced their statement with "I suspect," a phrase which underscores their own uncertainty.

Besides, admit it, most people who are over 40 take a little longer to adapt to using computers or to figure out some new-fangled program, video game, or cell phone. It's not that they're stupid or senile, they're just not used to electronics.

My Father, who recently turned 50, used to be a police officer. He used to have to write his police reports using ink and paper, and it wasn't until he was nearly 35 that they started using computers at the precinct to type reports. You can't just do something one way for 35 years and then turn around tomorrow and become an expert in doing it an entirely different way.

One of my industrial psychology professors, Dr. Truxillo, does a fair amount of research on the differences in ability between younger and older workers, and has some interesting ideas on the topic. I can't recall them with any real detail right now, but basically it amounts to the notion that younger and older workers generally have different strengths and weaknesses, but both have the same potential in all areas and both are still useful.

Re:Not statistically significant

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Besides, admit it, most people who are over 40 take a little longer to adapt to using computers or to figure out some new-fangled program, video game, or cell phone

Hate to break it to you, but the reality is that most people over 40 just don't have the patience for useless bullshit that a younger person might have, due mostly to decades of useless bullshit that gets obsoleted within three years anyway. If something needs to get done though, done it gets.