Slashdot Mirror
Research Suggests E-Readers Are "Too Easy" To Read
New research suggests that the clear screens and easily read fonts of e-readers makes your brain "lazy." According to Neuroscience blogger Jonah Lehrer, using electronic books like the Kindle and Sony Reader makes you less likely to remember what you have read because the devices are so easy on the eyes. From the article: "Rather than making things clearer, e-readers and computers prevent us from absorbing information because their crisp screens and fonts tell our subconscious that the words they convey are not important, it is claimed. In contrast, handwriting and fonts that are more challenging to read signal to the brain that the content of the message is important and worth remembering, experts say."
This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I'm regretting not reading it on my Kindle, so I could forget it quicker.
What does this have to do with E-readers beside trying to increase article hits? The effect of readability would be just the same for a printed sheet of paper. But I guess that would not be so interesting to read about...
TFA failed to mention that the bulk of the content found on the e-Readers surveyed was copies of the Twilight series and whatever's on O's list these days.
Somehow, I doubt it's the font that is making everyone stupid...
Blog,Twitter
And yet despite this supposed discovery the person put it out on a webpage which has to be read on a computer screen. I guess he didn't think his discovery was that important since we are all now going to forget it easier? Wouldn't it have been preferable to put scanned images of his handwriting instead?
Anyone who has ever worked in Information Design can tell you that paper, with it's stunning contrast ratios and 1200 dpi printing is a far more precise medium than screens. WTF?
I call bullshit on that research. Maybe the subjects for it were the hipsters that don't really have anything interesting to read but love to sit on the grass in popular parks to show-off their pseudo-intellectuality with an e-reader on their hands.
The study had 28 participants... and they were asked to remember species of aliens...
While this may be a sign that it's worth looking into the differences a font makes in learning, I'll wait until a bigger study comes out where participants were asked to read a more likely and involved subject matter like the history of the Ottoman Empire.
I have a feeling many participants will be less likely to read past the first chapter if it was written in Comic Sans.
There were two main criteria that he used for describing if something is easily forgotten or not: ease of reading visually and complexity of writing.
It seems as if he's advocating making fonts and such harder to read, so that we are more likely to remember what we read, regardless of whether what we are reading is some trashy novel or a manual that we need to know to save lives. This seems wrong. We should be remembering details from what we read based on the quality and importance of the writing, not the font.
Interesting contrast to my experience: I find black ink on paper (using standard TR font) easier to read than the lower contrast text on eReaders and monitors. Flat panel monitors have no detectable flicker like the old CRT monitors (even at high vertical refresh rates with no interleaving) - but their contrast is poorer.
In my case, the "tangible" aspect of turning physical pages seems to make the information stick better. Perhaps that's due to familiarity with the format.
gah, so wrong.
What it points to is that people need to read more challenging works. Something with new words or clever phrases.
Remembering a crappy sentence just because some ink is smudges, or that the font is blurry helps nothing.
On guy extrapolating research he doesn't seem to understand into his person experience means, exactly..nothing.
He likes books, and is just fishing for excuses that justifies his love of books.
Me? I have read a lot of books. I don't love books, I love good stories. The book is nothing, the story is everything.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even if true, I'd bet you a dollar it's learned preference and will be completely different in the coming years. I'd wager that the preference has to do with how we're taught the 'weight' of the printed word either in libraries from when we were children, or contextual learning, like ignoring the fine print in a drug ad. I'd also bet that a similar study would show that we forget things read in magazines more quickly than things read in books. And I bet we remember hardcover books more than softcover, etc.
In other words, the people studied put digital readers in a mental category of 'novelty item' today, and their brain de-prioritizes what they are reading accordingly.
They need a better study.
All those years they made fun of me for running 2560x1600 on my 19" CRT, saying I was going to ruin my eyes because it was so hard to read. At least I remember everything I read over the years.
and people won't forget your message
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
I find it hard to read or even remember what I read on a Kindle type display, because the black on greyish contrast is offputting. I find myself distracted by the display and not focusing on the text.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
jUsTbEkUzItZhArD2rEaD