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."

Flawed Study?

[Kneo24]

Maybe I'm just being obtuse here, but it wasn't clear to me if they read the same story on all of the platforms, or just had each person read the story once and the testers chose the platform for them.

This is pretty significant. If you're going to have me read the same 30 pages over and over again, I may slow down due to boredom, or I may skim the pages and the progression appears to have increased.

even if this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if this is true (and I'm not sure it is), just the fact that I can have my Sony Reader with me at almost all times means that I get more reading time in than I would if lugging paper books around. And for the record, I still do read a fair number of paper books. The eReader supplements my paper book reading experience -- it didn't replace it, like so many people whom I know seem to believe happens (not surprisingly, those same people tend to view nearly everything around them in the same black-and-white terms).

How do you measure it?

[mseeger]

I think this depends how you measure it. During my last vacations i have read about 20 books all stored in my ebook reader. If i would have taken the time to buy/fetch new books every time from a bookstore, i would have read (on average) much slower. Having an automated bookmark for every book also saved a lot of time. So, it depends on the way of measuring :-).... as usual.

CU, Martin

A few people will see this for what it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Letting tech people (PC World, Apple, Kindle, et al) run tests like this to measure a tech-type property (speed, efficiency) is letting the tech people dictate the nature of the questions being asked about an "item", in this case 'are ebooks better than paper books". The outcome is irrelevant; the debate is being guided by one participent only. It's as if the hard sciences are telling the liberal arts what you are allowed to enjoy based on the only tests accepted: Their tests. The paper book people appear to be sitting on their haunches. They're probably just disorganised, but that has no affect on the non-technological benefits of paper books to a reader. Benefits that might be very personnel and quite unquantifiable.

By the way, I'm quite technological, not a 'phobe at all. But I'm smart enough to know that when tech companies say 'this is better' what they usually mean is 'empty my warehouse'.

Depends on purpose

[iPhr0stByt3]

Electronic books can be indexed and searched (on a PC or iPad you can also copy/paste sometimes (depends on the source). If I were to read a novel, I would prefer it to be a hard-copy. But since 99% of books I read are technical I prefer being able to search for related information and for research I prefer my PC (if nothing else I can always save screenshots in OneNote). Though I've never used a kindle, so I don't know if/how good they can search?

Re:Not statistically significant

[Volante3192]

Or the chance some people had a hard time with the Hemingway.

At the very least, all 24 should have tried each method, changing the stories each time.

Reading is harder on a monitor.

[GarryFre]

Have you ever typed a document in, carefully checked for the numerous errors that a spell checker will not catch only to have the errors JUMP out at you once they hit print, only to go back, fix the errors only to have them jump out at you on second print or even third? I have my guesses as to this phenomenon, but I've observed it in myself and others time and time again. Sometimes when I'm programming and cannot find the problem I'll highlight the area and suddenly see the errors, so my guess is simply having the medium in your hand in print or on a different colored background without glare as on a monitor can cause you to connect better with the reading material and find the errors or comprehend things faster.

Re:Depends on purpose

[Overzeetop]

You know, it depends on how well you know the reference and what you're looking for. I can find certain sections of commonly referenced code* far faster with a 1000 page book than I can look it up in e-form, since it takes far longer to grab the book and flip to (say) page 634 than to find and open the PDF**. For stuff I need to find, but I don't reference often, the computer can be faster since I can do a search. Oddly, things I almost never reference are usually faster in the paper version because I can "scan" the book faster and find the section I need (pdf readers really need to get better at flipping pages). This is particularly true since some searches are very hard to properly parse. A search for "exit stair width," for example, will find hundreds of hits as individual words, none as a phrase. What I would need to be able to search for is "width" in sections about "stairs" in the chapter(s) which cover "egress". None of the readers I have can do that, but I know that I can flip through about 40 pages scanning and find the one or two sections I need in less than a minute.

*the International Building Code to be specific

**I happen to use close to a hundred references in "daily" work, so shortcuts are pretty much useless - they still have to be filed somewhere. Even if it file is only three clicks and a keystroke away, I can get my answer faster than a 20-30MB PDF can open in any reader I've tried. Now, if someone can find a way to accelerate opening and - especially - thumnail indexing and page flipping, including with large images (12,000x16,000 bitmaps for arch. prints), I'm all ears.

Re:Not statistically significant

[bill_mcgonigle]

ignored variables such as users already being used to reading paper books and not digital ones

But that's the majority of the world, so if you want to know how switching to digital will affect most people, this is OK.

I've probably read 9:1 digital:print in the past decade, but still prefer a paper book for works of significant length.

Re:Not statistically significant

[EggyToast]

I'm young (recently 30) and have great vision, yet I just recently discovered, thanks to a Kindle, that smaller font sizes make me sleepy. When I'm reading something, on a computer, book, kindle, whatever, if the font is small and I'm a bit tired, it takes a little more concentration to read the tiny font -- which subsequently tires my eyes out. With a comfortable font size, I can read for hours without feeling the least bit drowsy.

And I don't think it has anything to do with screen size, either, as I've read whole novels on my iPhone -- with a reasonable font size, of course. But it wasn't until I had a device that let me simply change the size of the font instantly that I even noticed the issue. Now it makes me think differently about older people reading; I think my drowsy grandparents, who tear through paperbacks yet often fall asleep reading them, aren't actually just "old and tired" -- I think they simply go through the same thing my young eyes do.

But to corroborate your main point, my parents love using their iMac and my grandparents recently got a "hand me up" laptop that they use for games and other stuff. In both cases, they just had to get over the "will I break it?" factor, and then they were zooming like any other human when confronted with an interesting object ;D

Re:Not statistically significant

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Wow... pointing out the error in someone's claim and then backing it up with actual quotes that substantiate that analysis gets multiple Troll(-1) mods? Or was it pointing out how bigoted some things sound when you apply them to a different group? Or was it disagreeing with someone's opinion about what 40 and 50 year-olds have experienced. Or maybe just ageist's who don't like being confronted with their own beliefs? Cause it sure seems a pretty pathetic attempt by some people to suppress something they are uncomfortable hearing. Yep, good going in your support of free and open debate! Today I especially love my sig. LOL!