Slashdot Mirror


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."

21 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Not statistically significant by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:Not statistically significant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      The difference between the two devices was not statistically significant.

      (Emph. mine)

    2. Re:Not statistically significant by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, 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"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Not statistically significant by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?"

      Wow, there's a bit of bigotry snatched out of thin air. Unfortunately one that is not at all uncommon on /.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    4. Re:Not statistically significant by rainmouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With a sample size lower than what is even acceptable for a undergraduate students assignment and too many ignored variables such as users already being used to reading paper books and not digital ones, this article really isn't worth the paper its digitally printed upon.

    5. Re:Not statistically significant by Runaway1956 · · 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.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Not statistically significant by BForrester · · Score: 4, Funny

      Accordingly, you could argue that the discrepancy caused by old users might be balanced out by young users who wasted a lot of time saying, "Where's the damn 'on button' on this old-fashioned block of papers?"

    7. Re:Not statistically significant by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 3, 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:

      Also I suspect a good portion of those people were old...

      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":

      and probably wasted a lot of time saying, "Where's the damn next button on this newfangled gadget?"

      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.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    8. Re:Not statistically significant by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Not statistically significant by EggyToast · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    10. Re:Not statistically significant by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  2. Re:you cannot jump 30-pages by delinear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Novelty, too I guess. Most people have used paper books their whole lives. I'd be interested to see the tests in 20 years of kids who have grown up with ebooks as their primary source of reading material and how they get on when they're handed a real book.

  3. Flawed Study? by Kneo24 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Sounds like a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Books should be read carefully and slowly. What's the rush?

  5. Newbies by Tx · · 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.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
    1. Re:Newbies by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point - combined with the FP's concern about the low number of people involved in the study (n=24) and the various devices, we basically don't know anything new. If you have a 10% difference in a small, self selected sample then one should be very, very careful not to extrapolate this data much.

      My take home message: It's all about the same. Do what you like. Get off my lawn.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. How do you measure it? by mseeger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  7. Reading is harder on a monitor. by GarryFre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
    1. Re:Reading is harder on a monitor. by dstar · · Score: 3, 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).

  8. Study done cold? by jridley · · Score: 3, 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.

  9. Re:Out of 7 ? by Blink+Tag · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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