Reading on Paper is Faster than iBooks on the iPad - Page 2

SameOldStory · 07-06-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Why isn't this in this thread?

Because THIS is a newer posting.

And everyone knows that if it's new, it's better.

Just wait until I finish my MY study. It's to determine if reading from a Kindle while strapped to an electric chair awaiting execution is faster or slower than reading from a PocketBook 302 while your baby sleeps. It'll be a timed study so that the guy in the eChair doesn't try to mess up my experiment.

WillAdams · 07-06-2010, 10:02 AM

Thing which detract from reading in most e-book formats:

- no real italics
- no nice ligatures / text hyphenation / justification
- orphans
- widows
- overall poor spacing and line breaking
- low resolution / anti-aliasing results in blurry text not as sharp as imagesetter output (at least 1,200 dpi, often much higher)
- overall smaller image area
- slow page turns

The test would be much more interesting if one created a printed book w/ the exact same image size / area / proportions as an ebook reader and then compared reading that w/ the .pdf used to prepare the printed book on an ebook reader (w/ a much larger sample size).

William

leebase · 07-06-2010, 10:43 AM

Did they equalize the font size? Did they equalize the line length? I read faster on my iPad and iPhone because I don't read at the same font size as a book, but larger. I don't lose my place on a page and have to scan to find my spot like I do often enough when reading a book. I don't have to shift my head from one pare to the next. I read even faster on my iPhone as the small screen keeps my eyes focused on one spot.

No, this study hasn't begun to plumb the depths of this topic. You can't adjust a book, but you can fine tune an ereader. And once you find you best setup, all your ereading will be the same. Each book is a different size, different font size etc. I know I read a paper back that I can fold back on itself much faster than a thick hardback that's hard to hold. But on my iPad I can read the both the same.

Lee

BenLee · 07-06-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

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.

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,

tompe · 07-06-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abookreader

Study needs to be done with a couple of thousand people across all ages and familiarity levels with the technologies in order to be useful.

And it also needs to randomize the order of the devices.

This is just wrong. You do not need a couple of thousand people to get a statistically significant result.

leebase · 07-06-2010, 11:50 AM

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 disagree. While the operation is simple, it took me about a week with the iPad to find my groove with it. After the first couple days, I still preferred my iPhone.

Then the case arrived, and my familiarity with the device improved -- and I found some really great and comfortable ways to read -- for me.

Lee

leebase · 07-06-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

This is just wrong. You do not need a couple of thousand people to get a statistically significant result.

But 24 is kinda small...wouldn't you agree?

Lee

tompe · 07-06-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leebase

But 24 is kinda small...wouldn't you agree?

Lee

Maybe. 24 could be enough. It depends on how the selection was done.

BVLarson · 07-06-2010, 12:08 PM

Absurd test. Let's take a group of non-typists and figure out that typing is useless, pens are better. Training with new tech does matter. Just watch a high-schooler text and you'll see what I mean!

-bvl

DixieGal · 07-06-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leebase

I disagree. While the operation is simple, it took me about a week with the iPad to find my groove with it. After the first couple days, I still preferred my iPhone.

Then the case arrived, and my familiarity with the device improved -- and I found some really great and comfortable ways to read -- for me.

Lee

What case do you use? I'm looking for one. Thanks!

carld · 07-06-2010, 01:19 PM

I don't think the validity of the test really matters, as the conclusion itself hardly matters. So reading on a device is slightly slower than reading on paper ... and? If paper were something like twice as fast as electronic reading there might be a point to this study, otherwise, no.

dpayment · 07-06-2010, 02:01 PM

There are too many variables for this study to be really valid, the researcher has chosen the reading material with no apparent regard for the subjects' preferences. It's been my experience that I tend to read somewhat slower if it's material I don't enjoy, even when I'm reading for pleasure. I've been using eReaders for almost 10 years now, and I certainly don't see any difference in my reading speed regardless of whether I'm using an eReader, or reading a real book.

Studies like this prove nothing really, I call them "cesspool agitation studies", they're usually designed to cause controversy.

The primary issue here is that regardless of whether people are reading from real books or from an ereader, they're reading.

And whether it's for pleasure, research, or education, any reading is good reading. I'm 62 years old, I've averaged approximately 300 books a year for at least 45 of them, and there isn't one book that I've read that I haven't learned something from.

jasonfedelem · 07-06-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

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.

I tend to vertically regress on a pBook. Being able to set the text size on the eBook has helped significantly reduce this and increase my reading speed.

And 24 partipants is ridiculous. It becomes about the individuals participating at this sample size because by the time we iterate all the possible demographics there would be at least 24 demographics in and of themselves, even if you only take age, nationality and gender into account.

Certainly, a sample size of thousands would be more accurate, but I think they could get away with a somewhat accurate study in the hundreds.

jaxx6166 · 07-06-2010, 05:24 PM

You know, I stumbled on that one the other day in the bathroom. And the location I discovered it is the location I left it.

What a crock of ....you know.

Lastblade · 07-06-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leebase

But 24 is kinda small...wouldn't you agree?

Lee

Not if you are Jack Bauer!

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, 10:02 AM	#17
WillAdams Wizard Posts: 1,258 Karma: 3439432 Join Date: Feb 2008 Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (300ppi), Samsung Galaxy Book 12	Thing which detract from reading in most e-book formats: - no real italics - no nice ligatures / text hyphenation / justification - orphans - widows - overall poor spacing and line breaking - low resolution / anti-aliasing results in blurry text not as sharp as imagesetter output (at least 1,200 dpi, often much higher) - overall smaller image area - slow page turns The test would be much more interesting if one created a printed book w/ the exact same image size / area / proportions as an ebook reader and then compared reading that w/ the .pdf used to prepare the printed book on an ebook reader (w/ a much larger sample size). William

07-06-2010, 10:43 AM	#18
leebase Karma Kameleon Posts: 2,960 Karma: 26738313 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn	Did they equalize the font size? Did they equalize the line length? I read faster on my iPad and iPhone because I don't read at the same font size as a book, but larger. I don't lose my place on a page and have to scan to find my spot like I do often enough when reading a book. I don't have to shift my head from one pare to the next. I read even faster on my iPhone as the small screen keeps my eyes focused on one spot. No, this study hasn't begun to plumb the depths of this topic. You can't adjust a book, but you can fine tune an ereader. And once you find you best setup, all your ereading will be the same. Each book is a different size, different font size etc. I know I read a paper back that I can fold back on itself much faster than a thick hardback that's hard to hold. But on my iPad I can read the both the same. Lee

07-06-2010, 12:08 PM	#24
BVLarson Author Posts: 123 Karma: 900 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: California Device: Kindle	Absurd test. Let's take a group of non-typists and figure out that typing is useless, pens are better. Training with new tech does matter. Just watch a high-schooler text and you'll see what I mean! -bvl

07-06-2010, 01:19 PM	#26
carld Wizard Posts: 2,698 Karma: 4748723 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Kindle Paperwhite	I don't think the validity of the test really matters, as the conclusion itself hardly matters. So reading on a device is slightly slower than reading on paper ... and? If paper were something like twice as fast as electronic reading there might be a point to this study, otherwise, no.

07-06-2010, 02:01 PM	#27
dpayment Connoisseur Posts: 90 Karma: 618 Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Ottawa Device: PocketBook Pro 902, EB-1150, PRS505, PRS700, Jetbook, Hanlin V3, Kobo	There are too many variables for this study to be really valid, the researcher has chosen the reading material with no apparent regard for the subjects' preferences. It's been my experience that I tend to read somewhat slower if it's material I don't enjoy, even when I'm reading for pleasure. I've been using eReaders for almost 10 years now, and I certainly don't see any difference in my reading speed regardless of whether I'm using an eReader, or reading a real book. Studies like this prove nothing really, I call them "cesspool agitation studies", they're usually designed to cause controversy. The primary issue here is that regardless of whether people are reading from real books or from an ereader, they're reading. And whether it's for pleasure, research, or education, any reading is good reading. I'm 62 years old, I've averaged approximately 300 books a year for at least 45 of them, and there isn't one book that I've read that I haven't learned something from.

07-06-2010, 05:24 PM	#29
jaxx6166 Wizard Posts: 1,222 Karma: 769316 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Eternal summer Device: 350, iPad, PW	You know, I stumbled on that one the other day in the bathroom. And the location I discovered it is the location I left it. What a crock of ....you know.