Reading on Paper is Faster than iBooks on the iPad - Page 3

Crowl · 07-06-2010, 06:59 PM

As long as speeds are comparable, the result is irrelevant regardless of methodology, but one obvious point to make, if you were reading fast then an ebook reader becomes easily the best option since it's weight doesn't increase to add a 2nd book.

DJHARKAVY · 07-06-2010, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenLee

I really don't think familiarity with controls would factor much into the test. eReaders of any type are DEAD SIMPLE. I've used iBooks...you know how to use it after like 2-3 page turns. It's not rocket science. Unless they are factoring the time it takes to load the book, the "not knowing how to use it" factor should not be an issue,

I don't know... I've been reading digital books for about a decade, but I still have a moment of thinking where I am pressing to turn the page in my reader. I turn pages in books pretty much unconsciously...

I don't know if it makes much difference, but given how small the differences were, it very well might have accounted for part of it. And moreso because there is a difference between a decade of working with these gadgets and a short lesson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

The original link stated that the participants were taught how to use the devices so as to exclude UI-based confusion from the test.

Taught how to use the devices. How long, an hour or two? Compared to a lifetime of paper reading?

Now if they were given the books to take home and played with them for a week or two each, then you might be able to exclude the interface. Mostly...

wodin · 07-07-2010, 03:28 AM

Another thing that isn't mentioned is the order in which the devices were tested. It says "The subjects each read different short stories by Ernest Hemingway on all four platforms". I think that the forth time I waded through a Hemingway story, I might read it a little faster too.

Sinthor · 07-10-2010, 01:30 AM

Yes, I think the survey is pretty bogus. First of course is the sample size, then it's makeup. Were the people surveyed familiar with the devices in question? Also, as far as the iPad specifically is concerned, was speed influenced at all by people flipping to the web to look something up? I find I do this fairly often now, where I couldn't do it on other devices...

All in all, I don't think the survey means much even if it was completely legitimate. Personally, I know I read at least as fast as I did with normal paperbacks whether I'm using my Kindle or my iPad. Maybe even faster. I know I certainly read a lot MORE since I got my Kindle. That HAS changed just a bit with my iPad because I find it's other apps and abilities a bit distracting. I find myself going to a website to look up something I just read and then surfing a few others before returning to the book. Or maybe even playing a quick game or something.

I have to say this though... I LOVE my Kindle. It was the best device I'd ever purchased. I've been diving into the iPad and reading on it for the past few weeks though and I have to say I think (for me) that reading on the iPad is just as good. My quandry is that if I think it's just as good, and does more, I should sell my Kindle to get the extra $$ for a device I won't be using as much. Problem is... I LOVE my Kindle. I'm not sure if I can give it up. I keep thinking of what if I MIGHT want it or need it for this or that. So I'm torn between doing the "smart" thing and my attachment to the wonderful Kindle.

foreverjuly · 07-10-2010, 03:47 AM

The more important factor for me is the retention rate. I'd like to remember what I read, regardless of how fast or slow my eyes glanced over it. Though reading on old, bulky monitors revealed a huge dip in retention, new e-readers allow us to retain virtually the same percentage. Good news!

Mike_73 · 07-10-2010, 05:35 AM

Reading devices, no matter which one, made me read more again. On the one side, I'm kind of a geek and just love having new toys. On the other side, switching from a magazine to a book, to e-mail, to mobileread without keeping a stack of paper stuff right beside me on the couch is just awesome.
Compared to not reading at all, reading between 4-6% slower than on paper shouldn't be the issue

BenLee · 07-10-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike_73

Reading devices, no matter which one, made me read more again. On the one side, I'm kind of a geek and just love having new toys. On the other side, switching from a magazine to a book, to e-mail, to mobileread without keeping a stack of paper stuff right beside me on the couch is just awesome.
Compared to not reading at all, reading between 4-6% slower than on paper shouldn't be the issue

Interesting point. But having the ability to go ADD on one device probably does not help with focused reading.

mikij · 07-10-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike_73

Reading devices, no matter which one, made me read more again. On the one side, I'm kind of a geek and just love having new toys. On the other side, switching from a magazine to a book, to e-mail, to mobileread without keeping a stack of paper stuff right beside me on the couch is just awesome.
Compared to not reading at all, reading between 4-6% slower than on paper shouldn't be the issue

I agree. Instead of having a brick of papers, I have my e-reader and read much more than during the previous 20+ years. I found the pleasure of reading I had when I was young and I can do it everywhere (subway, bus, doctor's waiting room).
And I love the new toys, too. So, if true that this way of reading is slower, I don't care - my pleasure would be longer. But, I think that I read even faster (besides the page turn, maybe). And I was always a fast reader.

GeoffC · 07-10-2010, 10:19 AM

Does anyone tend to fall asleep quicker when reading on an eInk device ? I seem to, for some reason ....

astra · 07-10-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Does anyone tend to fall asleep quicker when reading on an eInk device ? I seem to, for some reason ....

Maybe because it is lighter and you don't have to apply a lot of strength to hold it?

GeoffC · 07-10-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astra

Maybe because it is lighter and you don't have to apply a lot of strength to hold it?

Not too sure, I'd say the Gen3 is about the weight of a medium length paperback ....

BenLee · 07-10-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Does anyone tend to fall asleep quicker when reading on an eInk device ? I seem to, for some reason ....

Haven't noticed that myself. But I do fall asleep while reading when I read late into the evenings.

astra · 07-10-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Not too sure, I'd say the Gen3 is about the weight of a medium length paperback ....

Oops. I have forgotten paper backs

. I used to read hard backs only.

GeoffC · 07-10-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astra

Oops. I have forgotten paper backs

. I used to read hard backs only.

the weight of a hard back would be equivalent to an iPad ?

GeoffC · 07-10-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenLee

Haven't noticed that myself. But I do fall asleep while reading when I read late into the evenings.

perhaps it's as simple as that ?

07-10-2010, 01:30 AM	#34
Sinthor Member Posts: 14 Karma: 10 Join Date: Feb 2009 Device: Kindle 2	Bogus! Yes, I think the survey is pretty bogus. First of course is the sample size, then it's makeup. Were the people surveyed familiar with the devices in question? Also, as far as the iPad specifically is concerned, was speed influenced at all by people flipping to the web to look something up? I find I do this fairly often now, where I couldn't do it on other devices... All in all, I don't think the survey means much even if it was completely legitimate. Personally, I know I read at least as fast as I did with normal paperbacks whether I'm using my Kindle or my iPad. Maybe even faster. I know I certainly read a lot MORE since I got my Kindle. That HAS changed just a bit with my iPad because I find it's other apps and abilities a bit distracting. I find myself going to a website to look up something I just read and then surfing a few others before returning to the book. Or maybe even playing a quick game or something. I have to say this though... I LOVE my Kindle. It was the best device I'd ever purchased. I've been diving into the iPad and reading on it for the past few weeks though and I have to say I think (for me) that reading on the iPad is just as good. My quandry is that if I think it's just as good, and does more, I should sell my Kindle to get the extra $$ for a device I won't be using as much. Problem is... I LOVE my Kindle. I'm not sure if I can give it up. I keep thinking of what if I MIGHT want it or need it for this or that. So I'm torn between doing the "smart" thing and my attachment to the wonderful Kindle.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Reading on Paper is Faster than iBooks on the iPad	italianReader	General Discussions	1	07-06-2010 03:57 AM
iBooks 1.1 out for iPhone and iPad	kjk	Apple Devices	99	06-28-2010 05:18 PM
iPad Reading ePub without iBooks?	murraypaul	Apple Devices	9	04-24-2010 08:07 AM
iBooks on iPad to be U.S. ONLY???	TallNHairyDave	News	15	01-28-2010 09:42 PM
Environmental study: 30 min of e-paper reading = 30 mins of print reading	Steven Lyle Jordan	News	36	12-14-2007 03:29 PM

07-06-2010, 06:59 PM	#31
Crowl Wizard Posts: 1,340 Karma: 1160346 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Southport, GB Device: Kindle Voyage, PW Signature edition	As long as speeds are comparable, the result is irrelevant regardless of methodology, but one obvious point to make, if you were reading fast then an ebook reader becomes easily the best option since it's weight doesn't increase to add a 2nd book.

07-07-2010, 03:28 AM	#33
wodin Illiterate Posts: 10,279 Karma: 37848716 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: The Sandwich Isles Device: Samsung Galaxy S10+, Microsoft Surface Pro	Another thing that isn't mentioned is the order in which the devices were tested. It says "The subjects each read different short stories by Ernest Hemingway on all four platforms". I think that the forth time I waded through a Hemingway story, I might read it a little faster too.

07-10-2010, 03:47 AM	#35
foreverjuly Crank Up The Awesome! Posts: 315 Karma: 708054 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Japan Device: Kindle, Nook, iPhone	The more important factor for me is the retention rate. I'd like to remember what I read, regardless of how fast or slow my eyes glanced over it. Though reading on old, bulky monitors revealed a huge dip in retention, new e-readers allow us to retain virtually the same percentage. Good news!

07-10-2010, 05:35 AM	#36
Mike_73 Guru Posts: 750 Karma: 1323 Join Date: Dec 2009 Device: PRS-505, PRS-600, iPad 16GB Wifi, Kindle Voyage, Nexus 6, Razr HD	Reading devices, no matter which one, made me read more again. On the one side, I'm kind of a geek and just love having new toys. On the other side, switching from a magazine to a book, to e-mail, to mobileread without keeping a stack of paper stuff right beside me on the couch is just awesome. Compared to not reading at all, reading between 4-6% slower than on paper shouldn't be the issue

07-10-2010, 10:19 AM	#39
GeoffC Chocolate Grasshopper ... Posts: 27,599 Karma: 20821184 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Scotland Device: Muse HD , Cybook Gen3 , Pocketbook 302 (Black) , Nexus 10: wife has PW	Does anyone tend to fall asleep quicker when reading on an eInk device ? I seem to, for some reason ....