|
Cats again, isn't it? I really do love all the discussions here!
Okay - I'm doing the odd hardcopy of some documents for "closer reading". Earns me raised eyebrows from younger colleagues my shuffling around the pages and taking handwritten (sic!) notes. I still remember reading at a monitor not being normal and nearly all pdfs received being sent to the printer. So perhaps all a matter of "being used to" and time.
The question if text reception (however this one is put into measurable terms) is depandent on medium (hardcover, pocketbook, etext at large screens, dedicated ereaders, tablets, smartphones etc) is a valid one imho. The study discussed is well documented, can be re-run, improved on in various aspects. So there should be "scientific" progress in identifying differences between media used for reading (I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for conclusive results though).
But every scientist should know that there is a big step to take from finding differences and judging them in terms of better/worse. Looking at the study I think the authors should have been more cautious with their conclusions and interpretation. Not that all caution would hinder the press picking up the results under the headline "Kindle users do not understand what they are reading - study shows".
We all are a good deal wary about all things which have are seem to have a negative slant on ebooks/ereaders - some posters here are quite vocal on this one. I share the sentiment as I see us in the middle of missing the chance of open up the whole world of literature for new generations with etexts - giving a choice in times of www-snippets of entertainment, "information", opinions etc. For my post-WWII generation pocketbooks did that - in my case even more than public libraries did. Nowadays all the major players making the big decisions have clearly a different agenda - money and power being the operational terms.
|