Reading Experiment - Narrow Margins

[barryem]

A couple of months ago I spent a couple of months reading exclusively on my phone as an experiment. I like the Moon+ reading app and I had just acquired a Samsung Galaxy S5 phone with an AMOLED display, which, at least in theory, should be easier on my eyes than an LCD display and I wanted to see what I could learn. So for 2 months I did all my reading on either my LCD phone or my AMOLED phone.

I learned 2 things. First, that I can read up to about 30 minutes without eyestrain on the AMOLED screen while I'm limited to 15 or 20 minutes on the LCD phone. I already knew about that limitation on the LCD phone but the extra time I got on the AMOLED phone, the Galaxy S5, was good to know. That was one thing I learned.

The other thing was something I'd suspected for a while, that I read faster on a phone than I do on my Kindle. I didn't measure that. When I try to measure reading speed my focus is on reading at a constant speed and that's just not how I read so it doesn't mean anything to me. But I found that I read about twice as many books a month on the phone as I had been doing on my Kindle.

Anyway, after a couple of months of that test I went back to the Kindle, which is really my preferred way to read, and I slowed down again. I was spending as much time reading, maybe even a bit more, but reading about half as much. All of this is very much estimated. Nothing is measured. But I'm pretty sure I'm right.

So my last book, a pretty long and dense and rather fascinating book, was taking a while. That was okay because I was enjoying it, but it made me wonder. I began thinking of the differences in the phone and the Kindle and of course the obvious one is the phone has a much narrower screen, meaning shorter lines of text.

The Kindle has 3 margin positions and I've always kept mine on narrow margins, meaning wide text. It just seemed wasteful not to. While I was thinking about this last week, though, I remembered something I read a couple of decades ago when I was doing most of my reading on my Palm Pilot. We were having some discussions about the differences in reading on the Pilot vs paper books. This was a discussion among people who read a lot on their Pilots so it was mostly about differences and not much about preferences. Someone posted a link to an article from a very old newspaper or magazine, I forget just what the source was, about newspaper layout. As I recall it said that columns in newspapers were kept narrow to improve the ability to read quickly.

I did a little googling about this recently and didn't find that article or anything else that seemed to confirm that in any very convincing way. I found articles here and there on either side of that issue that all had good arguments.

Anyway I set the margin on my Kindle to it's widest setting, meaning narrowest text, and tried it, and wow! I was reading fast. I didn't like it much though so I changed it to the middle margin width and found that I still read faster. I'm not sure if I read as fast that way but I am sure it was faster than with the wide text/narrow margins.

Then I set it back to the widest margin/narrowest text again, deciding to try that a little longer. I realized that my discomfort with it was because I don't like wasting and I was wasting so much space. But that's a little bit like being bothered by better gas milage because it's a waste of gas tank.

Anyway I finished my book at lightning speed with narrow text. I even, on my phone, with Moon+ reader, widened my margins and made the text even narrower. Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!

I think the reason this works is because I'm gulping in a whole line at once and not scanning across the line. I'm not working at reading faster. I'm still reading at what seems the natural and normal speed. No focus on my reading speed at all. I just get more reading done. And I'm finding I'm even enjoying it more.

I'm posting this to start a discussion, not about the proper line width or about your prejudices or mine, or about how the page ought to be, but among any of you who try different text widths long enough to get past your expectations and see how it really affects you. I know how it's affecting me. I wonder if that's just me or if it's really a better way to read.

Any thoughts, for or against, will be appreciated. By the way I plan to copy this and post it in a couple of places. I'm not sure why I'm mentioning that. It just seems appropriate.

Barry

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by barryem

The other thing was something I'd suspected for a while, that I read faster on a phone than I do on my Kindle. I didn't measure that. When I try to measure reading speed my focus is on reading at a constant speed and that's just not how I read so it doesn't mean anything to me. But I found that I read about twice as many books a month on the phone as I had been doing on my Kindle.

I noticed the same thing last year when I was between Kindles (my K3 broke and my KV wasn't here yet) and it has seemed that way when I have forgotten my Kindle at home a couple times. Nice to see that it isn't just me. I still prefer reading on my Kindle but I will try changing my margins to see what affect it has on me too.

[Barbara1955]

I read on my Amazon Phone when out & about also at Dr appts . Reading seems faster cause of the smaller screens & I seem to be always turning pages Maybe that's whats happening to you?

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by Katie1

I read on my Amazon Phone when out & about also at Dr appts . Reading seems faster cause of the smaller screens & I seem to be always turning pages Maybe that's whats happening to you?

For me it wasn't the screen turns, I was actually finishing books faster than I expected to. I commented on it at the time I believe. It was only a few days though so I will try to give this experiment a longer time and see how it goes.

[gmw]

I can't find the links right now, but I do know that line-length* has been studied and there are optimal lengths (from vague memory it was between 50 and 70 characters per line for most people). This is one of the reasons why books with fine print can cause difficulties, it's not just the font size but also the number of words on the line.

* line length as the number of words or characters per line rather than margin width, although obviously you can manage the former with the latter, but you can also do it by adjusting the font size

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

I can't find the links right now, but I do know that line-length* has been studied and there are optimal lengths (from vague memory it was between 50 and 70 characters per line for most people). This is one of the reasons why books with fine print can cause difficulties, it's not just the font size but also the number of words on the line.

* line length as the number of words or characters per line rather than margin width, although obviously you can manage the former with the latter, but you can also do it by adjusting the font size

It is well-known, as Barry mentions, that narrow columns can be read more quickly, which is the reason that newspaper columns are printed the way they are.

[pdurrant]

I wonder: is it the physical size, or is it the number of characters?

If it's the number of characters, then upping the font size should have the same effect.
If it's the physical size, then upping the font size should not change overall reading speed.

And if the latter is true, then my desire for an ereader with a 9:16 aspect ration instead of the current 3:4 would make a lot of sense.

I may try wider margins myself.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I wonder: is it the physical size, or is it the number of characters?

It's at least partially physical size: you can read more quickly if you can see the whole line without having to scan your eyes across it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is well-known, as Barry mentions, that narrow columns can be read more quickly, which is the reason that newspaper columns are printed the way they are.

I thought narrow newspaper columns started due to the practicalities of typesetting? (But it can be difficult to tell when you're getting reliable information or urban myth when just browsing the 'net.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

I thought narrow newspaper columns started due to the practicalities of typesetting? (But it can be difficult to tell when you're getting reliable information or urban myth when just browsing the 'net.)

A Google search for "why are newspapers printed in columns" returns lots of answers, all of which seem to say essentially the same thing. Here's a typical reply:

The initial reason columns were used was because of deadlines and advertising. If your newspaper had only one column on its front page (or any age) then if some new story "broke" you'd have to redo the whole thing. Additionally journalists are taught to write using the inverted pyramid model - have the high-level summary as the first paragraph, have more specificity in the second, and so on. That way if a story needed to be trimmed (to fit another in, or place an ad) then the editor can "cut from the bottom" - and this is easier to do (and "reflow" a story) if you have a multi-column layout. Magazines used the same process and style, just with less frequent (or crushing) deadlines.

A reason why this column layout persists and is still used is it helps in readability. Less words on a line supports scalability and "breaks up" the black test with "random" gaps. Take an ebook reader like Stanza on the Mac and open a random book. Make the reader screen wide, using only one column (it helps if you have a larger monitor in this exercise). It almost hurts my eyes and is "harder" to comprehend than the same content would be if it was presented in a thinner column or multiple columns.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-re...and-newspapers

So it seems it's a combination of practical considerations about making layout changes AND considerations of readability.

[underscore]

Interesting.
So, should we simulate a couple of columns when reading a novel on a 8/9.7/13 inches ereader ?

Also Bible is printed in columns

[Cinisajoy]

I noticed something the other day.
The latest hardback I read was in large print. It did seem to go faster.
The strangest thing was I finished the book and came straight here. It took me a good two minutes to be able to read anything here.

[fjtorres]

Try this:

https://www.viget.com/articles/the-l...-misconception

Classically-trained designers, and really every professional designer, should know the old adage that long line lengths can have a counterproductive impact on readability. The trusty copy of Bringhurst's authoritative The Elements of Typographic Style makes this rule fairly cut-and-dry:
Anything from 45 to 75 characters is widely-regarded as a satisfactory length of line for a single-column page set in a serifed text face in a text size. The 66-character line (counting both letters and spaces) is widely regarded as ideal.
So naturally, when designers work on the web, they're keeping this rule in mind. Consequently, it's become a best practice on the web to keep line lengths below 75 characters, and this best practice has been the source of dissent against movements for things like variable-width (fluid) layouts and the like.
But research doesn't support this claim, at least on the web. Instead, users are able to read significantly longer line lengths on the web, and it actually increases efficiency and comprehension.

More at the source.
66 characters is roughly what fits on a typewritten A4 page with the classic one inch margins at 12 points/10cpi.
I don't think it's a coincidence but it looks like a chicken and egg question.

[barryem]

I'm not sure that larger print would have the same effect as wider margins on reading speed because large text is both taller and wider, meaning fewer lines per page. However, one of the most important things I've learned from this little experiment is not to trust my expectations so this is probably something else worth testing.

As for my judgement of my reading speed, I'm basing that not on how many pages I read but how many books I read. I'm a fairly slow reader and I began a fairly short book yesterday while waiting in the doctor's office for a checkup and this morning I'm about 60% of the way through it. It's about 200 pages, I think. Before I started this margin testing a 200 page book would take 3 to 5 days. I might even finish this one today.

I'm noticing something else, too. When I read faster without trying to push harder I seem to enjoy it more. And the story seems to be a little more coherent. It's too soon to be sure about that but at the moment that's how it seems.

Barry

[Deskisamess]

I've always felt the same about thin margins on my e-readers...to use wide seems to be wasting space. But I'm going to set the margins wide on my Kobo Glo HD for the next book I start, and see if I notice a difference.

I am very nearsighted, and use a progressive lens. I can read without my glasses when laying in bed at night, with the e-reader about 6" from my face. A more narrow column will mean less eyeball travel.

When I use my iPhone for reading, I like using an app that allows scrolling. That along with a narrow column should be a pleasant experience.

Since getting my first Kindle in 2009, I've enjoyed reading again. I pretty much have given up on print books. The text is too small in paperback, hardbacks are expensive and heavy, and many books use cheap thin paper. The bleedthough on thin paper is a problem as well. I don't always need a larger font size, many times wider line spacing helps me more than larger fonts.