From: CNN ~ Study: E-books take longer to read than print
The study found that reading speeds declined by 6.2 percent on the iPad and 10.7 percent on theKindle compared to print. However, Nielsen conceded that the differences in reading speed between the two devices were not “statistically significant because of the data’s fairly high variability” — in other words, the study did not prove that the iPad allowed for faster reading than the Kindle.
Can I admit I read this crap and thought the whole study was a goof?
They take a random 24 people who can read and hand them an iPad or Kindle and of course and they immediately hate how HEAVY the iPad is or how the contrast on the Kindle eInk screen sucks BIG TIME. Those of us who have been been around for a while are like “no duh!”.
These people probably never dealt with any huge hardcovers or they would know the iPad is not THAT HEAVY.
Have you ever lugged around a dictionary? I have in college, and when my laptop finally got a standard dictionary application I was like THANK GOD! The same can now be said about being able to grab my iPad instead of having to rummage through my shelves and boxes looking for a book to read.
Anyway, these guys also decided that reading paper was faster than reading from a screen but that everyone in the end comprehended the material at the same level.
So iPad readers are not any dumberer… Is this a bad thing? Bueller?
I am not talking out my ass here I took that Evelyn Wood Speed Reading Course in high school so I know what speed reading pertains to and I also know that the crux of the matter is to maintain reading comprehension while skimming text.
No biggy in my case! I use my iPad for reading and relaxing not taking courses.
On another note though… I would much rather be able to search my textbook electronically than to be able to read it faster. Does that make sense? Because I found I was much more likely to use my speed reading skills to skim through a chapter looking for pertinent information to then “read slowly” than to skim through that information to get to the next chapter.
Being able to use a “search function” to Google that material in an eBook format would be a different set of skills but would also make the whole reading speed argument a non-issue.
I don’t think these guys understood the format enough to really provide any new insight here.
Tags: Common Sense
Chris wrote,
TeleRead broke the story a few days earlier and then had a follow-up post on how the study wasn’t particularly useful.
Link | July 7th, 2010 at 7:24 am
Keishon wrote,
Just 24 people? Yeah, that study isn’t significant. Meaningless.
Link | July 7th, 2010 at 7:31 am
LVLM wrote,
Personally, I’m a slow reader. I always have been. I tried the Evelyn Wood thing and I ended up going back over stuff because I missed a lot. My brain just doesn’t function like that.
But, my personal perception is that I read ebooks on a reader much faster than paper.
On reason I think that is so is because I can just see the print better. I have an eBookwise with a back light screen, so it’s easier on my eyes. Paper in natural light or soft light is still hard for me to look at, which is why I refuse to buy an eINK reader.
Then there is the difference in font. Most PB have a small font and I have to get my reading glasses, which are stronger than than the bifocals I wear already because the font is too small. It takes me longer to read a book because I can’t even see the freaking font.
Reading with proper light and font size means that I can go a bit faster since I’m not spending half the time just trying to even see what I’m reading.
But seriously? This is not a study. It’s a joke.
Link | July 7th, 2010 at 8:34 am