Reading on Paper is Faster than iBooks on the iPad

wodin · 07-05-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

That said this study leaves a lot to be desired owing to its small test group size,

I wonder how MR members would fare in this study?

mikij · 07-05-2010, 09:35 PM

Interesting, but irrelevant. The sample was way too small to obtain the relevant results.
However, I agree that I enjoy a lot more reading my ebook than a paper book.

J. Strnad · 07-05-2010, 09:45 PM

I'm not sure how any of this study is relevant. Are we buying ereaders because we want to read faster? I'm not.

LDBoblo · 07-06-2010, 12:24 AM

Why isn't this in this thread?

BongoBong · 07-06-2010, 01:27 AM

"The study found that reading on an electronic tablet was up to 10.7 percent slower than reading a printed book. "

up to 10.7 percent slower means nothing, it could just be one person who couldn't figure out the buttons! An average on how much slower would be much better.

"Overall, it took each user an average of 17 minutes and 20 seconds to read a story regardless of the platform"

This part makes it seem like the average was the same for each way of reading.

astra · 07-06-2010, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I'm not sure how any of this study is relevant. Are we buying ereaders because we want to read faster? I'm not.

Sweetpea · 07-06-2010, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I'm not sure how any of this study is relevant. Are we buying ereaders because we want to read faster? I'm not.

But if you read faster, you can read more!

Oh wait, I don't want to read faster, because I'll have to say goodbye to my friends faster then too...

LDBoblo · 07-06-2010, 06:00 AM

The test is really limited, but average consumption speed is a good general measure of reading media effectiveness. Dismissing speed as some have been doing is misguided.

There are other psychological and physiological tests that can be done, but larger sample sizes are necessary.

tompe · 07-06-2010, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I'm not sure how any of this study is relevant. Are we buying ereaders because we want to read faster? I'm not.

If I am replacing paper books I will not use something that makes me read slower compared to my paper book reading speed.

DJHARKAVY · 07-06-2010, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

The test is really limited, but average consumption speed is a good general measure of reading media effectiveness. Dismissing speed as some have been doing is misguided.

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.

abookreader · 07-06-2010, 07:14 AM

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.

billyad2000 · 07-06-2010, 07:28 AM

The article makes the point that the 4.5% advantage of the iPad over the kindle was "not statistically significant."

If the 4.5% difference between the iPad and the Kindle is so insignificant I have to wonder if the 6.2% difference between a paper book and the iPad is significant.

At exactly what point does the difference become significant enough to matter.

Just the figures:
average
17m 20s
=1040s

iPad
+ 6.2%
=1104.48s
=18m 24s 48ms

Kindle 2
+ 10.7%
=1151.28s
=19m 11s 38ms

"The difference [between reading times on the iPad and Kindle 2] would be so small that it wouldn't be a reason to buy one over the other," Nielsen wrote.

Since the difference between the iPad and Kindle 2 is only a little more than the difference between the iPad and a paper book, does this mean that this is no reason to choose a paper book over the iPad.

fishface · 07-06-2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyad2000

The article makes the point that the 4.5% advantage of the iPad over the kindle was "not statistically significant."

If the 4.5% difference between the iPad and the Kindle is so insignificant I have to wonder if the 6.2% difference between a paper book and the iPad is significant.

As mentioned, nothing in this study was significant. The sample set was too small (24 people), the activities too limited, and the differences too marginal.

Yay Interweb pseudojournalism! You can always count on it to pick up random WTF bullshit and report it like it's news.

LDBoblo · 07-06-2010, 07:56 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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishface

As mentioned, nothing in this study was significant. The sample set was too small (24 people), the activities too limited, and the differences too marginal.

Yay Interweb pseudojournalism! You can always count on it to pick up random WTF bullshit and report it like it's news.

I don't think I'd go that far. It's far from good or comprehensive testing, and the findings aren't conclusive of anything really, but the premise of the test is good, and could promote further excursions into that area of research in the future.

GeoffC · 07-06-2010, 08:12 AM

Does it matter ?

07-06-2010, 07:28 AM	#12
billyad2000 Enthusiast Posts: 36 Karma: 2968 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: Cybook Gen3	The article makes the point that the 4.5% advantage of the iPad over the kindle was "not statistically significant." If the 4.5% difference between the iPad and the Kindle is so insignificant I have to wonder if the 6.2% difference between a paper book and the iPad is significant. At exactly what point does the difference become significant enough to matter. Just the figures: average 17m 20s =1040s iPad + 6.2% =1104.48s =18m 24s 48ms Kindle 2 + 10.7% =1151.28s =19m 11s 38ms "The difference [between reading times on the iPad and Kindle 2] would be so small that it wouldn't be a reason to buy one over the other," Nielsen wrote. Since the difference between the iPad and Kindle 2 is only a little more than the difference between the iPad and a paper book, does this mean that this is no reason to choose a paper book over the iPad. Last edited by billyad2000; 07-06-2010 at 07:32 AM.

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

07-05-2010, 09:35 PM	#2
mikij Connoisseur Posts: 98 Karma: 161 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Quebec, Canada Device: PRS-600	Interesting, but irrelevant. The sample was way too small to obtain the relevant results. However, I agree that I enjoy a lot more reading my ebook than a paper book.

07-05-2010, 09:45 PM	#3
J. Strnad Guru Posts: 915 Karma: 3537194 Join Date: Feb 2009 Device: Kobo, Kindle 3, Paperwhite	I'm not sure how any of this study is relevant. Are we buying ereaders because we want to read faster? I'm not.

07-06-2010, 12:24 AM	#4
LDBoblo Wizard Posts: 1,385 Karma: 16056 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asia Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Sony PRS-505	Why isn't this in this thread?

07-06-2010, 01:27 AM	#5
BongoBong Enthusiast Posts: 40 Karma: 54 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Canada Device: none	"The study found that reading on an electronic tablet was up to 10.7 percent slower than reading a printed book. " up to 10.7 percent slower means nothing, it could just be one person who couldn't figure out the buttons! An average on how much slower would be much better. "Overall, it took each user an average of 17 minutes and 20 seconds to read a story regardless of the platform" This part makes it seem like the average was the same for each way of reading.

07-06-2010, 06:00 AM	#8
LDBoblo Wizard Posts: 1,385 Karma: 16056 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asia Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Sony PRS-505	The test is really limited, but average consumption speed is a good general measure of reading media effectiveness. Dismissing speed as some have been doing is misguided. There are other psychological and physiological tests that can be done, but larger sample sizes are necessary.

07-06-2010, 07:14 AM	#11
abookreader Wizard Posts: 1,516 Karma: 2567610 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: Kindles - Keyboard, Fire, 2-US, iPhone, iPAD	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.

07-06-2010, 08:12 AM	#15
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 it matter ?

Advert

Advert