Originally Posted by meeera
And design the study to tweak things...
I am not saying this study was designed that way.
I did not try to imply that the study was fixed, or that the results are wrong. Simply that generalizing based on 10 people might be a mistake. For what the study researched (which one is better for reading long-term: backlit lcd or eink) the indifference might as well have been the truth. How much of that tiredness is attributed to the act of reading and what part is the technologies fault might be interesting to know though. They could (maybe should?) have used reading on paper as baseline - and compare from there. How long did they read? Maybe that time was not long enough for differences to show up.
What did they try to show? It is either:
a) eink is just as bad as lcd
b) lcd is not any worse than eink