Study: E-books take longer to read than print

Study: E-books take longer to read than print

www.cnn.com

It takes longer to read books on a Kindle 2 or an iPad versus a printed book, Jakob Nielsen of product development consultancy Nielsen Norman Group discovered in a recent usability survey.

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Really? Well... let's weigh out the disadvantages. Personally I think it's better that we have people complaining about how it takes too long to read an e-Book over people complaining about how we're cutting down too many trees to make the paper that is needed for those books.

Do I prefer to read on an e-reader, tablet or in print? Personally I read books both in print AND on an e-reader. Perfect example is my iPod touch which I take with me to work plus everywhere else I go.

What do YOU think?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7/5/10 by Marked One]

Print.

Any day.

Too long on anything "electronic" be it laptop, Ipad,
Reader, or whatever, gives me a gnarly headache.

My girlfriend has a Barnes and Noble Nook e-reader. It has the Eink technology that makes the print look exactly like a regular book page. It is pretty amazing. She reads between 4 and 6 books per week on it. She thinks that she reads faster on the e-reader than a regular book.

Edit double post

[edit on 7/5/2010 by SUICIDEHK45]

reply to post by LadySkadi
I agree, reading print on a screen isn't easy on the eyes- They need to improve the tech so nothing appears to flicker or is brighter or shiny than it should be. These ebooks need to be bigger and can be read easily at any angle, just like books.

I remember hearing about bendable ebook readers, screens that can roll up like paper, stuff like that.

Yeah, as i read over 1000 books in printed version and just a few as ebook - and i am a very quick reader - i have to say i am quicker with ebooks.
I usually count automatically the pages whwn reading a printed one, but when i read an electronic i am everytime stunned by the pages i read in the same time...

Also i think the study is not as representative, because of two things:

First i believe, people who prefere to read with e-readers dont read much printed. they are not as trained as a fellow book reader.
Second, i dont know how they made the study. But if they tested the read ability of one person with one book he reads the story twice. The second time he is quicker cause he owerfly some words.

And surely your title is misleading, beacuase if i print a book with 400 or more pages, my printer is surely quicker than i could read...

Originally posted by JimIrie
And surely your title is misleading, beacuase if i print a book with 400 or more pages, my printer is surely quicker than i could read...

Hey. Tell CNN that. Not me. I'm just adhering to posting-guidelines.

If you are a word for word reader, it really shouldn't matter. I'm a scanner. I quickly scan the two pages in a regular book and then read the paragraphs or parts of paragraphs that are of interest. Electronic books will never be comfortable for me.

However, I am all for getting my news and social mail electronically. Have to save the trees somewhere.

Very strange.

I read books at an extremely faster rate on my Kindle than in print. I held out for a long time... one of those 'i love the feel of a real book' types. I don't carry a cell phone, don't use the internet at home, don't really like where technology is going in general.... but I just adore my Kindle.

I was never sure exactly why I read so much faster on it, but its most certainly the case. I just fly through books that used to take me ages.

reply to post by naught


Totally agree. When I got my Kindle, I just wanted the convenience of having all my books in one place, the instant downloading, and the cost reduction (e-books are usually a lot cheaper than the print counterparts).

But I was delighted to find an extra bonus--that I could read much faster on the Kindle. For example, a book that would ordinarily take about a week to read only takes about 4 days on the Kindle.

One reason is the ability to increase the print size. Even when wearing my glasses, a print book isn't as comfortable as reading the Kindle without them.

Another reason is the time wasted manipulating the book, such as turning pages, flattening it, turning it towards the light source, etc. None of those apply with the Kindle.

Another advantage is the auto-bookmarking. Just turn it off, and when you turn it on, you're back where you left off. This is potentially a time saver if your bookmark falls out.

I think the consensus on this thread among those who have an e-book will be that it's faster, but we shall see. I wonder if the study was promoted by a publishing house? And isn't 24 people a really small sample for a study like this? How hard would it be to get a couple hundred people to read a short story? Weird.

Technocrats crack me up. eBook devices are ridiculous gadgets. PCs have been around a long-time and never made reading PDFs any better.

FoxConn Suicides

Rape the Earth for resources
Rape the people of the world for their labor
Charge $189 US for a device
Charge $10 per book
Be sure to charge it
Try to flip pages or chapters easily

Be the cool kid = priceless

Physical books can be produced with 100% renewable paper and ink is the corporations would do what is right.