Reading Experiment - Narrow Margins

[dwig]

Originally Posted by GERGE

Ideal is around 65 characters in a line, with spaces and all. ...

That's not what I was taught, way back when, while I typography and printing design in school. Then, the studies quoted said that optimal reading comprehension occurs with line lengths in the 40-45 character per line range.

Granted, it will change a bit with other typographic attributes; leading (line spacing), the font's x-height (height of lower case "x" relative to the point size), the type's width, the type's weight, and the style and presence of serifs. The major attributes are the line length relative to the spacing between the rows of lower case text. When these are "out of balance" you eye searches more when returning to the beginning of the next line after finishing the previous line, reducing reading speed and comprehension.

[barryem]

I think the correct way to read is whatever way is best for you. I've learned to like the wide margins. Other people probably won't. Whatever makes you happy. Reading is a very individual thing.

I just counted positions in a line on my Paperwhite. It has 38 characters. That's with the margin set at it's widest and Bookerly font at size 4 with one level of bolding added. It seems fine to me.

It does make me turn pages more often but that's trivial.

Barry

[GERGE]

Originally Posted by dwig

That's not what I was taught, way back when, while I typography and printing design in school. Then, the studies quoted said that optimal reading comprehension occurs with line lengths in the 40-45 character per line range.

I just checked Bringhurst's book, he says 66 is ideal for single column, 40-50 is idead for multiple-column.

[Richwood]

Originally Posted by 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.

The old Sony 7" readers had a aspect ratio close to your wanted one. About 91mm wide and 157mm high. The width is very close to the same as a 6" Kindle or Kobo screen but the height is greater. Models PRS-900 and PRS-950.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

In the beginning, I read faster on the wider Kobo Aura ONE than on my Kindle Paperwhite, but for some reason, I've slowed down again. I did notice, however, that reading on the Kindle _seems_ to be less tiring. It could be because, at the same text size, it contains less characters per line, and the column is narrower, so I can read each line without actually scanning it.

I should return to the Kindle for some time and see if it's true. If reading on the KPW1 *really* turns out to be easier/less tiring/faster, I might just decide to sell the KA1 and either return to the KPW1, or replace it by a newer 6 inch reader.