Reading on Paper is Faster than iBooks on the iPad

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

I also read much more in e format. It takes me WEEKS to finish a paper book, but I've already read several books in the 9 days I've had my Nook. I have been using a Nokia 770 for years as an eReader (and my desktop PC for years before that), so the format isn't new to me. Also, I'm reading at times I couldn't with a paper book, like when I'm working out on my elliptical machine. Even if I could figure out how to clamp a paper book to it, the print would be too small, and turning the pages would be a nightmare. The Nook lays there perfectly (with just a large rubber band to secure it in place), I can pump up the font size to a comfortable level, and turning the pages requires just a light swipe of my finger. That's about 5 hours a week of reading I wouldn't get if I didn't have the Nook. And I much prefer reading to mindlessly watching TV, which is what I used to have to do when working out.

Given a choice, I much prefer eReading. We do have a hardbound copy of the book I'm reading for free on my Nook @ B&N, but I'd rather wait and read it there than deal with a heavy, clumsy book.

What I don't see is how this is at all relevant to the test that was posted. This sounds more like a bunch of people trying to high five each other for hanging together in the face of some kind of nefarious anti-ebook propaganda.

The test did say that subjective enjoyment with tablets was higher. Was that the part of the test you're agreeing with? (while you dismiss the rest of course)

[kjk]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

Are you implying that they are respectable statisticians?
With a sample size of 24, I hardly think so.
2400, perhaps, but not 24. That's a joke.

I'm saying that as far as I know, they aren't propagandists or in the pay of publishers, as you so blithely are willing to accuse them of. Norman and Nielsen are pretty respected UI guys-or at least they are in my industry.

[ThomasMc]

Originally Posted by tompe

You do not need a couple of thousand people to get a statistically significant result.

My good friend - who until she retired recently was a statistics professor at a well known college - would vehemently disagree with your statement.

I wouldn't even want to be in the same room when you set her off with that!

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

My good friend - who until she retired recently was a statistics professor at a well known college - would vehemently disagree with your statement.

I wouldn't even want to be in the same room when you set her off with that!

You're putting words into an anonymous expert's mouth in order to justify your opinion. [semi-personal challenge purged to produce more wholesome appearance]

[ThomasMc]

Originally Posted by kjk

Norman and Nielsen are pretty respected

They shouldn't be, if they consider 24 to be a statistically relevant sample size of anything.

[ThomasMc]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

You're putting words into an anonymous expert's mouth in order to justify your opinion. That's not a very courteous thing to do, and raises suspicions about your honesty.

So, you are requiring me to email her, and get a quotable opinion, implying that I would just LIE to you? That certainly raises my suspicions about YOU.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

My good friend - who until she retired recently was a statistics professor at a well known college - would vehemently disagree with your statement.

I wouldn't even want to be in the same room when you set her off with that!

Well, you do not need a couple of thousands. See for example:

http://parkinslot.blogspot.com/2003/...atistical.html

and so it goes till you find that an ideal sample for a 10% error margin hardly moves above 350 no matter how big the universe (it's 500 for 5%).

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

So, you are requiring me to email her, and get a quotable opinion, implying that I would just LIE to you? That certainly raises my suspicions about YOU.

If you are going to aggressively tear down a study which admittedly has a smaller than ideal sample size (even mentioned quite a bit in the study itself) as absolute nonsense, despite the statistically meaningful (if limited) results that it provides, you should do better than to invoke an anonymous retired professor friend who, according to your description, appears to have anger management problems. Or do so, with some kind of data or information to back up that anonymous expert's opinion. [personal judgment purged in order to maintain appearance of friendliness]

[ThomasMc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, you do not need a couple of thousands. See for example:

http://parkinslot.blogspot.com/2003/...atistical.html

24 is a hell of a long way from 350.

And I really don't appreciate A-holes like LDBoblo calling me a LIAR, just because I disagree with them.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

- no real italics

Well, I only use fonts that do have italics version available, alongside the regular and bold and I have purchased an e-book reader that can use them.

Originally Posted by WillAdams

- no nice ligatures / text hyphenation / justification

I wonder how much ligatures affect reading speed.
I am sincerely curious.
Can you point me to a good article or a book that talks about ligatures in depth?
I suspect that ligatures evolved because it was impractical for typesetters to manually stack thin and tiny i after an f that has a kind of overhang.
I do not think that ligatures were developed for speed of reading. Just have a look at the oldest examples of fonts that did feature ligatures.

I have read a text recently that made use of the ct, st, ft, and other ligatures and each of those was a jolt that brought my eyes out of reading rhythm.

[ThomasMc]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

If you are going to aggressively tear down a study which admittedly has a smaller than ideal sample size (even mentioned quite a bit in the study itself) as absolute nonsense, despite the statistically meaningful (if limited) results that it provides, you should do better than to invoke an anonymous retired professor friend who, according to your description, appears to have anger management problems. Or do so, with some kind of data or information to back up that anonymous expert's opinion. If you indeed have such a friend, you have just done her quite a disservice.

Wow, I can't believe you are even in this forum, with so many nice people.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

A sample size of 24 doesn't indicate "statistics", it indicates "propaganda."
Paid for by print-only publishers, perhaps?

Also the choice of the "researcher"; even with the disclaimer, the name Nielsen has certain subconscious connotations.

[nekokami]

Keep it civil, please.

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, you do not need a couple of thousands. See for example:

http://parkinslot.blogspot.com/2003/...atistical.html

There's a big difference (more than an order of magnitude) between 24 and 350. And I prefer the 5% error margin, so one would need at least 500 participants to design a study, even using these guidelines.

The other problem with these guidelines is that they don't take the complexity of the sample into account. If you need to control for several variables, your sample size needs to be higher to be sure you've adequately represented everyone. In this case, we should be looking at the type of material being read, the reading ability of the participants, vision issues, language of the materials and primary language of the reader, level of comfort with technology of the reader, reading conditions (e.g. outdoors in daylight vs. in a well-lit room vs. in a dimly-lit room), etc. Essentially, any circumstances you want to be able to generalize across need to be taken into account in your sample selection. (If you only want to be able to generalize to American full-time college students at four-year public institutions, your sample probably wouldn't need to be as large.)

In this case, the results of the comparison were not found to be significant. That's partly because of the small sample size. A study of this size doesn't have sufficient power to detect a significant difference, even if there is one. The qualitative data collected (the participants enjoyed the experience of using an ebook reader) is fine, though not generalizable. A study of this type can be useful to generate hypotheses which could be tested in a larger, more quantitatively rigorous study. But no conclusions can be drawn from the study as presented.

(And for those who wonder about my qualifications, I'm working on a dissertation involving quantitative research in the use of technology in the learning process-- not that far from the stated goals of this study.)

[ThomasMc]

Well, I'm outta here. I thought this was a reasonable, intellectual discussion among friends, but LDBoblo has turned it into hateful attacks against me for disagreeing with him/her/it.

I no longer have any desire to participate in this forum.

Goodbye.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

My good friend - who until she retired recently was a statistics professor at a well known college - would vehemently disagree with your statement.

I wouldn't even want to be in the same room when you set her off with that!

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

24 is a hell of a long way from 350.

And I really don't appreciate A-holes like LDBoblo calling me a LIAR, just because I disagree with them.

Yes. And you quoted something from me (about thousands of people) saying it was wrong. I have now showed it was correct. So if you do not know what you are talking about you should not accuse me of being wrong.