Kindle and iPad Books Take Longer to Read than Print [STUDY]

[Paul Keith]

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.

A total of 24 participants (10 is about average for a usability survey) were given short stories by Ernest Hemingway to read in print and on iPads, Kindles and desktop PCs. Hemingway was chosen because his work utilizes simple language and is “pleasant and engaging to read.” The narratives took an average of 17 minutes and 20 seconds from start to finish — enough time to get readers fully “immersed” in the stories, Nielsen explained.

Too sleepy to comment but this seems like an interesting take. Speed is now more important than pick up and play...err...read?!

Kindle and iPad Books Take Longer to Read than Print [STUDY]

from Mashable

[Deozaan]

I don't know about the iPad, but it seems to me that "turning pages" on the Kindle is what would slow you down the most for that device.

[mouser]

It doesn't surprise me at all that reading and browsing a physical book is much faster than using the ebooks.. and more enjoyable too.
But then there are advantages, like being able to carry several thousand books with you in your backpack, being able to search for words, etc.

[J-Mac]

I have an original Kindle and haven't touched it in about a year now. At first the books were inexpensive: Amazon committed that NY Times Bestsellers would always be $9.99 while other texts could be lower or higher. I got some great sci-fi classics for $1 and $2. However things started changing rapidly about a year and a half ago. Suddenly Kindle books were selling for the same or very close to the same as print books; the number of low priced books seemed to dwindle; and many of the NY Times Bestsellers often didn't even have Kindle versions anymore. Very disappointing. Add to that the "1984" fiasco and resulting revelation that Amazon could and would reach out overnight and delete whatever they desired from my Kindle and the attraction was completely gone for me. And if I was somehow still in love with the device after all that the battery issue would have done it in anyway. Seems that the original battery life was almost exactly as long as it took Amazon to release their "Kindle 2" device. As of the K-2 release parts for the original Kindle simply disappeared from Amazon - and everywhere else for that matter. No batteries in stock for the "Kindle 1". Found this out after I ordered one because Amazon had no notice that they weren't in stock; product page said "Usually ships within 24 hours". Ha! eight months later - yes that's EIGHT months, the number immediately after 7 and right before 9. My replacement battery was finally delivered. Amazon, usually very responsive to support requests, completely ignored all my emails and calls asking when and where batteries would be available again. All in all a pretty bad experience. No more Kindles for me. No more DRM-laden e-readers either, from anyone.

I still read all print books now, except for the occasional PDF ebook on my machine here.

Jim

[Mark0]

I would have never tought that someone would have done a reading speed comparision like that.
I read a lot of books (mostly free available ones) on a Cybook and I see no difference about reading speed compared to paper's ones. The page turning isn't a problem at all; you stop even noticing it very soon.

[Renegade]

Low resolution on screens and eye-strain might be a part of it. Fluidity on screen is illusory, and doesn't really compare to the real thing. Not sure. I know that I by VERY VERY FAR prefer to read in print. I very often print out ebooks so I can read them on paper. I have them available on the computer, but I READ them in print. It's much easier.

[slowmaker]

I very often print out ebooks so I can read them on paper. I have them available on the computer, but I READ them in print. It's much easier.

I'm a wee bit late to this thread, but I'm glad to see someone besides me does that.

Coincidentally, I calculated laser printer ink and acid-free paper costs just the other day to show my wife that cost per page made it actually a cost effective way to get a hard copy book in many cases, especially if the digital copy is in a form that allows you to reflow the text (taking advantage of the larger 8.5 x 11 pages vs 'normal' book page size).

Of course, you need to be sure of copyright issues, but when it's allowed, it's pretty handy.

[J-Mac]

I very often print out ebooks so I can read them on paper. I have them available on the computer, but I READ them in print. It's much easier.

I'm a wee bit late to this thread, but I'm glad to see someone besides me does that.

Coincidentally, I calculated laser printer ink and acid-free paper costs just the other day to show my wife that cost per page made it actually a cost effective way to get a hard copy book in many cases, especially if the digital copy is in a form that allows you to reflow the text (taking advantage of the larger 8.5 x 11 pages vs 'normal' book page size).

Of course, you need to be sure of copyright issues, but when it's allowed, it's pretty handy.

I imagine that this is very dependent on printer make and model, and whether or not you use ink from the manufacturer, aftermarket cartridges, or refill your own (if possible).

I don’t think I have printed an entire ebook - or maybe I have with some really short ones - but I do print out pages or chapters of user manuals quite often. 

Thanks!

Jim

[rxantos]

I just got a kindle and love it. The e-ink is great for the eyes as it a reflective surface instead of a irradiating surface. I wouldn't recommended for reference material because of the clunky way to navigate, and the small screen, but for reading novels is great.

Another plus is weight and space, specially when you travel.

Add project Gutenberg in the equation and you got a lifetime of legal and free reading material. (as you can download the books on kindle format).

[Darwin]

BTW, my experience with an Aluratek Libre suggests that I read just as quickly, if not more quickly, reading digitally than old-fashioned paperbacks...

[Renegade]

This thread (and similar ones) is just incredibly frustrating...

It just fuels my gear-lust. I really want to get an ebook reader, but... Sigh... I already spend an absolute fortune on tech already. So this is one of those things that I WANT, but don't really really need.

Still, gear-lust as it is... I find myself justifying buying one with all kinds of rationalizations. The most powerful rationalization at the moment is to buy an iPad, use it as an ebook reader, and justify the expense by developing software for it and recouping the costs there. But I know that I'm not going to be developing anything for it for a few months anyways as I've still got iPhone, Mac, and Windows development that I need to get done in addition to a few web applications that I need to get up and running.

And I really must buy a new phone... Which is a higher priority at the moment, and is going to be a significant expense yet again. (Drooling over the HTC Desire HD at the moment, but it looks like Australia is a bit behind the times and it's not quite yet available.)

Sigh... I guess I'll be drooling over ebook readers for a while to come... So please do continue to post experiences and reviews~!

[mrainey]

I find reading on a Kindle to be very pleasant.  You can set the font size, line spacing and rotation to suit.  Page turning speed isn't an issue for me.  I like being able to download the first chapter of most any book for free.

[Renegade]

And rotation? That's very cool. I've not actually looked at a Kindle before, so I didn't know that.

[nosh]

One (often overlooked) advantage ebook readers have over the ipad is the comfort factor. The ipad is heavy, and its edges are not exactly rounded, they dig into you if you're reading lying down with the ipad resting on you. The situation is salvaged somewhat with a good case but I'm sure something like a Kindle is way more comfortable.

I have never had eye-strain reading on portable devices. And I've read complete novels on a Nokia 6600, with a screen size a shade over 2". With larger font sizes and adjustable brightness eye-strain is even less of an issue on a bigger device.

The features available on devices must play some part in reducing reading speed. The ability to tap on a word and get its meaning is one of the biggest advantages a device has over a dead tree. But it does tend to slow down someone like me with a vocabulary of under 37 words.

B&N's Nook Color is worth checking out.

[edbro]

B&N's Nook Color is worth checking out.

The color Nook is LCD. Basically, it is a very small tablet. E-ink is much better for reading books. No reflective glare, no washout in outdoor light, small power needs, etc.

I have owned a Sony Reader for years now. I love it. I have the latest model on backorder right now and I'm anxious to get it.

I don't know about reading slower than in print but I certainly don't see it. I do know that I read a whole lot more than I did before I got the Reader. It is great because you can take them anywhere. Also, when I travel, I can take hundreds of books with me now instead of one.

[Darwin]

The Aluratek uses an LCD - the technology is called e-paper - and it's not backlit. I'm not sure in what other ways the LCD has been "tweaked" but there is no eye strain when reading it and it looks and works just like paper. I've used it outside in full sunlight without washout.

The only disadvantagethat I am aware of, compared with e-ink, is power consumption. However, I can get through 400-500 page turns out of a single charge, which I don't find too bad. However, e-ink gives 7500 page turns on a charge.

The main advantages over e-ink relate to page turning: doing is so is near instantaneous and you are not presented with a negative image of the page for a second before the next page is rendered.