E-book readers slower than the printed word: study

The study was done by the Nielsen Norman Group (a advocacy group focused on human-centered products), which is unaffiliated with Nielsen, the market research firm. The study compared a PC, a Kindle 2, an iPad using iBooks, and a printed book.
It should be noted that the study group was very small, with only 24 test subjects (3 others were excluded because of "measurement flaws" and 5 others were pilot subjects). Subjects were given a literacy test to ensure a level playing field prior to the study, and the author of the material, a different short story on each platform, was Ernest Hemingway.
The results showed that on average, the stories took 17 minutes and 20 seconds to read. Compared to a printed book, the iPad readers were 6.2 percent slower; Kindle readers were 10.7 percent slower, but NNG said these e-book reader differences were not statistically significant. For some reason, however, NNG did not provide the data for reading at a PC.
What NNG did provide was information on the "experience" of reading at a PC. Based on a scale of 1-7, the scores were iPad 5.8, Kindle 5.7, and the printed book 5.6. Subjects hated reading on the PC, which was down at 3.6.
Interestingly, users still feel that reading a printed book is more relaxing than using electronic devices. One of the reasons for hating the PC: users said it reminded them too much of work.
What conclusions came out of the study? Well, NNG said that in terms of dedicated e-book readers, they can't say which is faster (Nook fans are probably annoyed at its exclusion from the study). They did say the printed book still "rules," but in reality a larger test group would seem to be required to get a definitive conclusion.
The future may change things, as e-book readers, including the more general iPad, continue to improve. One thing is certain: the market for e-books themselves is rising steadily, and that is where the money really is, the "consumables" of the market.



Recent Comments