I read the full (relatively short) article and find it highly speculative at the least. They cite just a couple of studies that one might be able to Google, some anecdotes, and unspecified 'surveys and consumer reports' in support of the idea that electronic reading's 'haptic dissonance' makes paper inherently superior.
The state of digital reading is a fast-moving target and people have to develop skills for it. You can't sit people down for a 'study' who have been reading paper books all their lives, have them read something in a book, then expect them to get comfortable reading some electronic rendition with some crummy reading system (which, frankly, most are at this point) and draw any conclusions that 'paper is better because of this or that'.
Last edited by tomsem; 10-29-2013 at 10:20 PM.