Reading E-Books Takes Longer Than Reading Paper Books 186
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."
Re:you cannot jump 30-pages (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Newbies (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being frivolous, but as far as I can tell, the users were new to reading ebooks, but presumably not so with paper books. If you were to turn the study round, and test people who were familiar with ebooks but not with paper, you might get a very different result, especially on the general satisfaction. On the rare occasions when I read a paper book these days, I find it very irritating that I can't flip pages one-handed, larger books are actually hard to hold one-handed, I have to remember to place a bookmark and be careful not to lose it, because the damn thing doesn't automatically open back up to the last page I read, etc etc. Of course paper-book people are so used to these limitations, they don't actually notice them.
Re:Not statistically significant (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to mention the results aren't actually statistically significant:
You know why the data was highly variable?
"A 24-user study showed that..."
24 users is less a study, and more a reason to declare "further research needed"
Re:Newbies (Score:5, Insightful)
My take home message: It's all about the same. Do what you like. Get off my lawn.
Re:Not statistically significant (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, there's a bit of bigotry snatched out of thin air. Unfortunately one that is not at all uncommon on /.
Re:Not statistically significant (Score:5, Insightful)
Study done cold? (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like they just handed an ereader to people who weren't necessarily familiar with them.
My reading speed when I first got my reader was about the same as paper, probably a little slower. As I got used to it, I read faster and faster. After 2 years, my reading speed and comprehension on an ereader is much higher than it ever was with paper.
Also take into account the fact that it's much easier to hold a reader than a paper book, and I don't ever have to hunt for a bookmark.
I have a study for you... (Score:2, Insightful)
This study is, as studies in general tend to be, lacking in real detail and offers no real conclusion. At best, it serves to inspire debate about shit that doesn't need debating.
If you want to know how e-books compare to their print brethren, try an eReader or two out. Presumably, you have read countless paper-based writings, so you ought to know fairly quickly how well the format works for you.
Sheer speed isn't necessarily the "be-all" either.
Some reasons I have chosen the eReader format going forward:
- Unlike someone mentioned above, "how to hold it" is far less of an issue with an object of consistent size than with varying sizes of books/novels/mags. I read a lot in bed, laying on one side or the other. This generally means that, while one page will be a totally comfortable read, the opposite side requires a change of placement of book, head, or both. Other issues arise with the size of a book and amount of pages. The start/end of a large book can be unbalanced due to the distribution of the pages, thus being difficult to read.
- I find the same issue (how to hold) actually kept me from reading most books in public places (such as the metro, where you have limited space and time). NOw it is far easier to hold my ereader (sony 505) in one hand than most books, and I can flip the page with that same hand. This means I will actually break out a book on a 10 minute bus ride, where I did not bother to before.
- Portability: The fact that I can carry around a TONNE of books in one tiny form-factor means I can do far more reading when I am not at home.
- variable text size: This actually allows me to read faster as I dont find myself getting "lost" in large paragraphs of text, causing me to have to re-read parts of a book.
- exposure to new material: Let's face it, not everyone can get published, and no one want's to read a 100+ page pdf on their computer. I think the single largest benefit to these devices is that it allows you to read things you otherwise would not be able to. It lends exposure to the "little guy" (I have friends who have written whole novels, theses etc that I am now able to read).
There are more pros, and certainly some cons too, but the bottom line is that I am reading far MORE (and more varied) material now with my eReader than I ever was. Isn't that the most important thing.
Re:Reading is harder on a monitor. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to think that this is because so many people insist on using dark text on a light background, which means that you effectively end up staring into a lightbulb all day long -- of course you miss things!
I see people talking about studies which show that dark-on-light is easier on the eyes, but every one I've actually seen data for was for _non_-backlit surfaces.
(Other possibilities include the fact that the spacing between lines -- leading -- needs to be proportional to the length of the lines, which it's not on any computer I've ever seen).
Re:Not statistically significant (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhh - age does play a factor. I'm over 50, and there are some things that I don't like messing with, because the buttons are to small, or the interface isn't what I'm used to, or I just don't like the design. I'm aging, and I have my ways. I'm not changing because a bunch of 30 or 40 year old punk kids decide that an iPod should look like this, or an Android should behave like that. Given a choice between a printed realtree book, and electronic versions, I'll take the treebark, thank you. When I can't get the realtree, then I want the electronic version on my PC, with a nice wide screen, and what some people would call "large print". No little bitty 3 inch screens, thank you very much, and certainly no keypad where my index finger covers half a dozen keys.
Re:you cannot jump 30-pages (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading on a small hand-held device (currently a Palm 755p) is far superior most of the time. It provides its own illumination for night reading, it's smaller and lighter than a book, and I can store hundreds (or more) of books on it at once. The only people it would be bad for are those with poor eyesight.
As for where I get all my ebooks, that's a discussion for a different thread.
Re:Not statistically significant (Score:1, Insightful)
Ummm... just to provide some balance. I'm over 50 too and I love my Kindle. My mother is in her 70s and she reads from 3 to 4 Kindle books a week. Not all "older folks" are Luddites. Most ebook readers are easy to use, easy to read. With ability to select font size most of them are easier to read than a book.
Re:Not statistically significant (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it was an assumption. There was nothing in the argument to indicate that there was any age related correlations. He could have had any of a million different "suspicions" - there are lots of different "suspicions" one could come up with to explain the results - but he chose the one he did because it fit in with his own personal assumptions about things.
Let's see, he said:
Which is nothing but an assumption - there is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate anything that would reasonably generate his "suspicion".
And then he goes on to show his opinion of "old people":
Yeah... nothing bigoted about that. I suggest using the standard test: plug in another identifiable group and read the statement and see if it sounds bigoted. Hmmm
I suspect a good portion of those people were Black and probably wasted a lot of time saying "Where's the damn button..."
doesn't sound so good does it.
As for your other comments, really they aren't relevant to what I was saying but let me respond briefly to your comment about people over 40. Someone 40 would have been 20 in 1990... I think they had electronics then. Someone 50 would have been 20 in 1980... I'm pretty sure they had electronics then... even, gasp, game consoles were around in the 80's... yeah most people even those over 40 have had lots of experience with electronics and other "new fangled" devices.
Re:Flawed Study? (Score:3, Insightful)
1020. 0x3FF is the highest you can count on your fingers using binary. 1024 has the same "fingular" representation as 0.
Some of us can only count to 255 however... my ring fingers are incredibly difficult to use when counting binary.