Report: Readers absorb less on Kindles than on Paper

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

And joy of joys, there are already extremely anti-ebook authors out there using the study to justify their hatred of ebooks (while not showing an awful lot of comprehension about what the study actually said, or being able to tell the difference between eInk readers and tablets).

Well, I now know to stop ruining this author's career and not buy more of his books, since I'd have bought them as ebooks (he makes it very clear in the comment replies he doesn't want people to buy his books as ebooks since that is financially bad for him, but also, ebooks make you stupid!! see, this study says so!!).

I get a security warning when I click on that link. Any chance you could name the author? Or is that not a good idea?

[JSWolf]

The problem with the study is that they didn't switch what each group was reading from. It's quite possible that the people reading from paper are just better able to retain what they've read then the people reading from a Kindle and it actually has nothing to do with Kindle vs. paper.

You can go out and poll 100 people and get one result, go out and poll a different 100 people and get a different result.

Also, one thing I see as a problem is that the default font on a Kindle is bad enough to take you out of the book and look at the device and the screen more so then with a pBook.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The problem with the study is that they didn't switch what each group was reading from. It's quite possible that the people reading from paper are just better able to retain what they've read then the people reading from a Kindle and it actually has nothing to do with Kindle vs. paper.

You can go out and poll 100 people and get one result, go out and poll a different 100 people and get a different result.

Also, one thing I see as a problem is that the default font on a Kindle is bad enough to take you out of the book and look at the device and the screen more so then with a pBook.

All of this is trivial points that you take into consideration when designing a study. Why do people here assume that the study is not well designed just because the result seems to indicate something that people do not like or find not intuitive?

A statistical significant results is usually said to be a result were the chance for it being causes by random variations is less than 5%.

Is there any reason to assume that this study has claimed something that is not supported by the statistics?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tompe

All of this is trivial points that you take into consideration when designing a study. Why do people here assume that the study is not well designed just because the result seems to indicate something that people do not like or find not intuitive?

I, for one, don't assume the study is not well designed just because of the result. I find the study to be not well designed because the published details of how the test was designed seem to be not well designed (for testing what they claim their study's results suggest). Why do you assume it's only the results we're all basing our opinions on?

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

I get a security warning when I click on that link. Any chance you could name the author? Or is that not a good idea?

Try this link instead:

http://michaelbuckleywrites.com/2014...iting-partner/

OK, I actually read some of the post, and this guy is a nut:

I’m baffled by people who are willing to pay upwards of a $100 dollars for what is essentially a book cover that can break, will need upgrading, needs you to charge it every day, and will eventually become obsolete forcing you to buy a new one.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I, for one, don't assume the study is not well designed just because of the result. I find the study to be not well designed because the published details of how the test was designed seem to be not well designed (for testing what they claim their study's results suggest). Why do you assume it's only the results we're all basing our opinions on?

Because nobody seems to have read the actual paper. And all things that have been mentioned seems to me based on misunderstanding about things.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

Try this link instead:

http://michaelbuckleywrites.com/2014...iting-partner/

OK, I actually read some of the post, and this guy is a nut:

Thanks. He's certainly uninformed about electronic reading.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

Try this link instead:

http://michaelbuckleywrites.com/2014...iting-partner/

OK, I actually read some of the post, and this guy is a nut:

Somebody's stuck in the late 80s... geez.

I know what you folks are thinking. Man, we’ve heard all this before, but you don’t understand. E-readers have buttons! They light up! I can carry a lot of books on them, and check my email, and play games and take pictures and use them to travel back and forth in time! Plus, I can read stuff I would never want another human being to know I’m reading – shameful things that would make my grandma cry!

Seriously? That doesn't even begin to address the basic eink readers. Sure, they CAN do all of that stuff, but that's far from their purpose and I've never heard any user say those things about them. (except for maybe the subtle lighting up on the newer ones)

[Tarana]

Why do I assume it is a poor study? Simple. TWO experienced kindle readers in a study involving dozens of people. A statistician would have immediately told the researchers that they need more experienced kindle readers because what they are comparing are paper readers with inexperienced ereaders, not paper readers vs. ereader readers, which was the point of the study.

The Guardian article does the same thing as the other bozo by constantly equating an ipad or other tablet (with all it's glare) to an ebook.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Also, one thing I see as a problem is that the default font on a Kindle is bad enough to take you out of the book and look at the device and the screen more so then with a pBook.

What is wrong with Cecilia? Oh, right, not what I am using. I am using Cecilia Condensed. I don't miss the other font options I had before upgrading my PW to latest FW. Before I was distracted by constantly thinking - oh my, this would probably look and read better in the other font. Now, if I don't like what I am reading using Cecilia Condensed, I limit my choices to it being a boring book. When that happens I don't switch fonts, but books.

[eschwartz]

I tried to be helpful by referring Mr. Buckley to this thread -- shockingly, my comment did not pass moderation.

Interesting that the only comment which passed moderation was a trolling remark, allowing him to rebut it.

Alternatively, no one cares about his blog. Either way, guy's a jerk who doesn't want us to read his books. Fine with me -- he never had a chance at a paper sale anyway, what does he think he is losing by selling ebooks?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Interesting that the only comment which passed moderation was a trolling remark, allowing him to rebut it.

It is because he wrote the comment himself, and made himself so smart by responding. Having read the comments, I don't even think I will read the article, blog, whatever. Except now knowing what he writes about makes me wonder. Them must be some awesome jokes I don't want on my ereader.

[Zombater]

Originally Posted by twowheels

Somebody's stuck in the late 80s... geez.
Seriously? That doesn't even begin to address the basic eink readers. Sure, they CAN do all of that stuff, but that's far from their purpose and I've never heard any user say those things about them. (except for maybe the subtle lighting up on the newer ones)

I know what you folks are thinking. Man, we’ve heard all this before, but you don’t understand. E-readers have buttons! They light up! I can carry a lot of books on them, and check my email, and play games and take pictures and use them to travel back and forth in time! Plus, I can read stuff I would never want another human being to know I’m reading – shameful things that would make my grandma cry!

What in the actual f@ck? If my ereader could do any of this, then I'd be happy as hell...

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Zombater

What in the actual f@ck? If my ereader could do any of this, then I'd be happy as hell...

They may be thinking of tablets as e-readers. Which is perfectly understandable, since Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, etc., put an emphasis on their tablets as e-readers.