Reading on Paper is Faster than iBooks on the iPad

[astra]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

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

Frankly speaking, I have no idea.
I never weighted hard back and never help iPad in my hands.

[Richey79]

I reckon that I read faster on an ereader.

Reasons?

Speed-reading coaches advise that you hold the page so that it is perpendicular to your eyes, so that the whole page is in focus to the same degree of sharpness. I can never hold any print book at 90 degrees comfortably for any amount of time: it ends up at 45 usually. Plus, the print changes its angle and often perceived lighting as it dips into the binding at the centre of the print book. I also find the lower contrast ratio considerably more comfortable, personally.

I tend to find that my eyes naturally move continually onwards with an ereader. This isn't always a positive attribute - I sometimes find my eyes reaching the end of the page before I've really taken in the last couple of sentences. With a print book, I'm much more aware that my eyes are skipping back and forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_mov...nguage_reading makes for an interesting read). I feel that my manner of reading with an ebook is much more akin to another suggested technique for speed reading: that of following the text with a finger to force the eye to constantly progress through the text.

The final reason I think I read more slowly using a print book is that I continually get ever-so-slightly distracted by the physical book itself. I am unable to stop myself almost constantly being aware of my position per page; position as a proportion of the whole book read; where did I leave my bookmark? Oh dear, I'm drumming my fingers against the bundled pages on the right-hand side again.

In my experience, we don't fetishise the most useful technologies in our lives, but rather we become entirely oblivious to them. An ebook frees me to read the text, rather than a 'book'.

[kealiiballao]

Honestly, I've read 10 books in 2 months with my Sony Reader, I would normally read 2 books a year. Mind you these were books from 200 pages to 400 pages long. So I agree, based on my basic statistical math skills, the sample space was too small compared to the actual amount of ereader owners...

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by BongoBong

...up to 10.7 percent slower means nothing, it could just be one person who couldn't figure out the buttons! ...

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

Depends on WHY people are reading faster.

If they are reading slower because they are given a new ebook reader and are unfamiliar with the controls, then it is a short-term thing.

If they are reading slower because it is hard for them to see the words, that is a problem.

Agree with both above comments. Were the test subjects all new to the devices? It would appear so from the text of the report, but it isn't clear if any had previous experience with e-readers. Most of us know from experience that we read faster on the devices as we learn to compensate for the slight delay in movement from one page to the next by anticipating when to press the next page button. Like all other skills frequently practiced, it becomes automatic.

I wonder if there's been a study of who loses their bookmarked place more often, readers of paper books or readers of ebooks?

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Agree with both above comments. Were the test subjects all new to the devices? It would appear so from the text of the report, but it isn't clear if any had previous experience with e-readers. Most of us know from experience that we read faster on the devices as we learn to compensate for the slight delay in movement from one page to the next by anticipating when to press the next page button. Like all other skills frequently practiced, it becomes automatic.

I wonder if there's been a study of who loses their bookmarked place more often, readers of paper books or readers of ebooks?

The people in the study were taught how to use the devices and were believed to be proficient in their use.

Honestly though...reading some of the comments by people here about how hard it must be to push a dedicated button or swipe a finger and how it would impact the results...it makes me worried about the intelligence level of ebook readers. That kind of defense is even worse than the indignant dismissal of reading speed that some have shown.

There are certainly some unknowns in the test and some things that could be criticized, but it'd be better for everyone if said criticism was done without so much blind ignorance and semi-random biased conjecture.

Edit: This comment not personally directed, by the way.

[WT Sharpe]

Being trained and having experience are two very different things. From my days working on a factory assembly lines, I found that being on a new line--even after being thoroughly trained on that line and assumed proficient--was difficult. It took from several days to a couple of weeks of eight-hour days before the required movements and steps became second nature. Until then, I struggled to keep up, as was the case with everyone for a time when they first began on a new segment of the line.

[happy_terd]

It would take me longer to finish a book on an iPad. Too many distractions.

[BenLee]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

It would take me longer to finish a book on an iPad. Too many distractions.

LOL, good point. I don't know if they factored in the extra time spent flipping back between iBooks and youtube

[ThomasMc]

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

[kjk]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

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

Nielsen and Norman? Hardly.

[BenLee]

Originally Posted by ThomasMc

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

Definitely. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of statistics knows this study is meaningless, but nonetheless fun since it undoubtedly stirs up discussion.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Being trained and having experience are two very different things. From my days working on a factory assembly lines, I found that being on a new line--even after being thoroughly trained on that line and assumed proficient--was difficult. It took from several days to a couple of weeks of eight-hour days before the required movements and steps became second nature. Until then, I struggled to keep up, as was the case with everyone for a time when they first began on a new segment of the line.

Frankly, I hope they weeded out any people so hopelessly incompetent that they would be unable to turn a page after being taught how to do so.

[kacir]

I can read fast. Real fast.
With the help of computer I can read even faster - at a really breakneck speed.
I just have to install software for Rapid Serial Visual Presentation.
I am not sure I want to do my leisure reading at maximum possible speed. It is very tiring.
I wonder when the first RSVP software for iPad appears.

Kindle and iBooks are not known for their configurability.
When I read on my PocketBook I like to tweak everything. Font type, font size, line spacing, justification, borders, first line indentation, hyphenation and other parameters. I think (I have never clocked the difference) that such things can affect the speed of read significantly.

[ThomasMc]

Originally Posted by kealiiballao

Honestly, I've read 10 books in 2 months with my Sony Reader, I would normally read 2 books a year.

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.

[ThomasMc]

Originally Posted by kjk

Nielsen and Norman? Hardly.

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.