The Case Against E-readers -- Why Digital Natives Prefer Reading On Paper

[ctg]

Michael Rosenwald writes in the WaPo that textbook makers, bookstore owners and college student surveys all say millennials still strongly prefer reading on paper for pleasure and learning. This bias surprises reading experts, given the same group's proclivity to consume most other content digitally. "These are people who aren't supposed to remember what it's like to even smell books," says Naomi S. Baron. "It's quite astounding." Earlier this month, Baron published Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World, a book that examines university students' preferences for print and explains the science of why dead-tree versions are often superior to digital (PDF).

Her conclusion: readers tend to skim on screens, distraction is inevitable and comprehension suffers. Researchers say readers remember the location of information simply by page and text layout — that, say, the key piece of dialogue was on that page early in the book with that one long paragraph and a smudge on the corner. Researchers think this plays a key role in comprehension — something that is more difficult on screens, primarily because the time we devote to reading online is usually spent scanning and skimming, with few places (or little time) for mental markers.

Another significant problem, especially for college students, is distraction. The lives of millennials are increasingly lived on screens. In her surveys, Baron was surprised by the results to the question of whether students were more likely to multitask in hard copy (1 percent) vs. reading on-screen (90 percent). "When a digital device has an Internet connection, it's hard to resist the temptation to jump ship."

http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/0...--why-digital-natives-prefer-reading-on-paper

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Happily plants her luddite bookshelf in the thread. I was sure I cannot, cannot, cannot be the only person to not even want to read a book digitally, let alone one for hours of research. Yay.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

This is an article with the obvious and some nonsense:

Baron was surprised by the results to the question of whether students were more likely to multitask in hard copy (1 percent) vs. reading on-screen (90 percent). "When a digital device has an Internet connection, it's hard to resist the temptation to jump ship."

Not if it's a real eReader with eInk type screen. However the trial of Kindle DX for University Students was a failure. That's why the Kindle DXG is available cheap on amazon.com for International Shipping. Totally stupid research. Reading on a Laptop / Tablet / Big phone is an eReader Application at best, not an actual eReader. Thus Kindle Fire is more a Tablet and not a true eReader. Free Wikipedia and 60 Mbyte free everything else on a Kindle DXG isn't a distraction unless you are a digital masochist!

Random access is rubbish on all digital devices. I analysed this and came up with solutions in 1988-1989 that no-one has implemented yet.
PDFs are useless on screen unless your screen can display full page at 200 dpi+ resolution with shades (anti-alaised) or 300dpi+ if not.
LCD and AMOLED etc are only good for photos, video and not prolonged reading. The eInk is only screen tech close to paper for reading experience and the User Interfaces are poor.

Web pages are a misnomer. They generally ignore invention of the Book about 2000 years ago (Codex instead of Scrolls). Scrolling is the pits.

Document organisation is abysmal on the Kindle or Sony PRC.

So the problem isn't eReaders inherently, but you need to have passive screen only (eInk, or perhaps Mirasol. The Chinese eInk clone is like 1st gen eInk on original Sony PRC, Bookeen and first Kindle. The "official" eInk tech is now very good (used in 5th Gen Kindle Touch that came out after the 2nd version of paperwhite). The Kindle GUI software is still very poor. But nothing on a Tablet or PC is better, not even the best PDF readers on screens big enough to simulate the printed page. PDFs are for print. The problem is you need a 2400 x 1800 portrait 12" high screen, ideally eInk for PDFs and better GUI and Library than Adobe or Foxit suppplies on OS X, Windows, iOS, Linux, Android or Kindle has.

The Kindle DXG is nearly big enough for PDFs, but the screen isn't high enough resolution. The regular 6" Kindle though is fine for real ebooks that are not text books, just novels read sequentially.

I've just marked up nearly 600 notes on a 130K text I wrote on the Kindle and it's nearly rubbish for review of them as it can't remember location on Notes pages and the clippings.txt you can copy to PC only has the notes and not context. The Kindle locations are only meaningful on the Kindle. They seem to be roughly 11 to 12 words long. So if the Kindle powers off, unlike a book, it's back on the first page of the notes (6 per page!).

On the Kindle even when there is no DRM (i.e. your own text or Gutenberg) you can only copy / quote short extracts and only to Twitter or Facebook! Daft!

I still think the eInk Kindles are best thing for reading invented since printing press. I want to get a 6" touch to complement my DXG. The Fire is pointless except for Amazon integration as it's a Tablet. I'd rather pay extra and have a generic tablet, but as don't go anywhere I don't need a Tablet. The laptop is fine (I do actually have a 7" tablet and a large Android phone)

Summary
The regular real eInk screen dedicated eReaders are OK for fiction/novels, FAR better than tablet / PC for Gutenberg or saving paper proof reading your own work (or beta reading another author). They and tablets/laptops are nearly useless for text or reference books.

I prefer to get real books.

Only the large kindle DXG is at all any use for PDF docs etc, it can be some use for short reference material (1 to 10 pages) or scanned text books out of print. Printed text books are better. No decent eReader can do colour. The only tech that MIGHT do colour for real eReaders is the Qualcomm Mirasol, but it seems to be close to vapour ware. LCD and LED / AMOLED etc are inherently unsuitable.

The Library management, random page access, general GUI, lack of copy/paste, inflexible annotation and software generally of eReaders (dedicated or on Tablets/Laptops etc) is frankly ignoring all 1970s and later research. Hacked versions of Linux/Windows/Android as OS and customised Mobi Reader originally on palm Pilot! Pathetic!

 

[Brian G Turner]

My eldest will happily read Gary Larson cartoons on her phone, but won't pick up the book of them I got her for Christmas!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Technically though, is that an example of reading a book?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Technically though, is that an example of reading a book?

Oh, gosh yes.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Not this hobgoblin again. Ugh.

I guess this topic will continue to be the Fox News of publishing. Repeat certain lies often enough and they become true. Since 300 kids in Western Europe preferred print to ebooks, I guess that means ebooks are dead forevermore. How droll.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Not this hobgoblin again. Ugh.

I guess this topic will continue to be the Fox News of publishing. Repeat certain lies often enough and they become true. Since 300 kids in Western Europe preferred print to ebooks, I guess that means ebooks are dead forevermore. How droll.

I don't think anyone's saying that (are they?) I think what they might be saying is that a. for certain tasks paper books might be easier, and b. that concentration may not be aided by zipping between book screen and the internet.

But there's certainly been a levelling out of book sales and some of the decline of paper sales has slowed - I think soon we'll get a better sense of the market and what lies where. And, I suspect, some of that will include which book markets have shifted to where, not whether they have or not.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

But the research conflates ebooks on tablets/computers and barely considers dedicated eInk readers.
Nor does it examine WHY eInk readers are so poor for Text books.

It's barely more than a newspaper poll. Hardly proper research at all. It's well known that people can't multitask, it's an illusion. It's well known that people are easily distracted from a central task on a Tablet / Laptop.

So it's hardly saying anything about eBooks and nothing about what a dedicated eInk screen eBook reader should be like to be useful for anything other than linear novel reading.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

And of course the bit they forget to mention... they asked bookstore owners which format they prefer. People whose livelihood relies on one of the formats they were asking questions about. But nope. That's science. :facepalm:

 

[Ray McCarthy]

My Dad would prefer to buy ebooks by taking his kindle into a bookshop.
He hates the incantations required to connect his kindle to anything. He never figured the Virgin WiFi (which would only be of use to Amazon) and forgets how to do Amazon or Gutenberg or email attachment-> download to PC -> copy via USB.

He likes the eInk kindle and would never dream of trying to read a book on his PC.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I think what they might be saying is that a. for certain tasks paper books might be easier, and b. that concentration may not be aided by zipping between book screen and the internet.

Yes.
Neither of which is new.

They don't properly examine dedicated eInk "readers" nor examine why they work well for a Novel and are rubbish for anything else.

 

[Wo7f]

When I read a book for the first time on a tablet (iPad) I found it pretty easy. I thought I wouldn't enjoy it and miss the feel of a paperback or hardcover. But I found I had the same experience. It was an enjoyable read.

As for text books being online, this has already happened with certain books in certain schools. All the students have to do is CONTROL themselves, get the work done, and don't fall for the temptation of browsing on social media. As for finding themselves skimming, the solution is simple. Make them aware of subconscious skimming and have them correct it.

In the future, I see all textbooks and homework papers being on some sort of tablet. Then emailing the work to their teacher. In fact, some of this is also being done already. I feel it's inevitable that all paper types will go to electronic tablet or PC. I welcome the idea. Less garbage, more trees.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I feel it's inevitable that all paper types will go to electronic tablet or PC. I welcome the idea. Less garbage, more trees.

Probably not - they'll tear up the earth looking for all the minerals required to make batteries and all the devices destroying all sorts of habitats (including forests no doubt), and then it requires a steady flow of electricity in some manner just to work, so add to the effects of global warming. If there was a strong demand for paper products then they'd plant loads of trees in response

The bottom line is though, surely, that students like stuff on-line and in PC's so that they can cheat the hind legs off any homework they get

I can't remembering using textbooks after primary school to be honest (although I have a large still un-open collection of university books in my bookshelves)- just concentrated on lessons/lectures.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I'm on the fence here. I love the feel and smell of a paper book and definitely prefer to read one than an electronic device.

That said, I read in bed every night using the kindle app on my phone. It has the advantage of switching off automatically after I conk without losing my page and I don't need a reading light on, which irritates Mr Grumpy at the the other side of the bed. I can sleep in bright light but even a flashing LED seems to keep him awake (or so he claims, in between snores) and when I used to fall asleep reading a paper book he'd have to get up and walk round the bed to turn the bedside light off, leading to added grumpiness.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Young people may or may not prefer paper books -- I agree with those who think the sample is too small. Middle-aged people are, I suspect, pretty much divided between those who have fallen in love with the technology and those who haven't forgotten their love for the look and feel of a print book.

Older people will, I think, gravitate more and more toward ebooks, because they can adjust the font size to something easier on their eyes, and because the selection of large print paper books is so very, very limited. I love paper books; I always will. But given the choice between reading less because of eyestrain from the smaller print, and reading as many books as I always have, reading more books wins, no questions. Hardbacks are easier on my eyes, of course, because of the larger print. But I can't afford to buy many books in hardback; my budget simply does not stretch that far. (Thank goodness we have good libraries here.) With a mass market paperback book, I can only read so long before my eyes water and my head begins to ache. Still, if I really want the book, and that's the only way to get it, I will buy it. But if all of my reading was print books, I would probably be reading a half or a third of the books I do now. And it is only going to get harder.

Since everyone gets old eventually (or they die, which sort of puts a stop to reading altogether) and aside from the issue of eyestrain being retired means more time to read and less money to buy books, I think that ebooks are only going to get more popular.

I wish publishers would start printing a much, much better selection of large print books, and they started printing some of those in mass market paperback. But what are the chances of that happening?

 

[tinkerdan]

My stack of books is already large and with large print I'd expect it to get massive. I have found in my own experience that I read faster and with more comprehension on a computer monitor. I can't get the kindle away from Virginia so I'm not sure about that screen. Since I have noticed higher comprehension on the screen I've taken to being more careful with my paper reading material and I've noticeably increased both speed and comprehension there also. (I take this from someone else-s observation of my reading.) But I mostly love the notion that I can change the font size to make the reading experience better, so I first look for the ebook. My choice for paper usually devolves to when the traditional publisher charges the same for the paper and the e-book. (Then I buy paper just on principle.) It makes perfect sense since in an effort to defray costs they seem to equalize the price to help pay for the cost of producing the paper books. And-since I'm paying for them to produce the paper volume I want the paper. Maybe that's a driving force behind some reader decisions.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The high price is partly just to share the costs of things like editing, cover art, and so forth, which benefit the ebook just as much as the paper book. I still think they charge too much for new ebooks, but I can see why they aren't as cheap as some of the older books where they have to scan it from the paper book and usually do a pretty shoddy job of it! I think a fair price would be somewhere in the middle.

 

[Glitch]

I wish publishers would start printing a much, much better selection of large print books, and they started printing some of those in mass market paperback. But what are the chances of that happening?

Print on demand means this could be quite possible. POD books are generally more expensive.

 

[tinkerdan]

It made sense in the initial phase; because they were still working an antiquated model of publishing. With digital taking the forefront it makes the process much easier, which takes us to now and to where I was coming from.

They always have had to pay for that extra added value, but not as much as a self published author might end up paying; because they have a larger pool to draw from on a prefigured budget. So in the past the largest expense was digitizing the thing since everything else was finished. (Hopefully they are all in the digital age now, which would take the burden away from ebooks since the harder parts are accomplished for the paper editions.)

When I consider that they already have to pay for all of that; it then makes ebooks look more like another value added item.

I would think that it would go as a part of any purchased paper book that the reader could then download the ebook free (which sometimes happens, but not always). But a part of the problem is that the traditional publishers were hoping the ebook would fail and the high price on theirs looks as though they still want it to fail. I think that it boils down to the fact that every ebook they sell from one standpoint is 100% profit; but runs the risk of increasing the probability that more people will go digital if the price were reasonable and that would cut into their design and would then start to pass the costs of all those services into the process if ebooks tipped the scale. I have no problem with them doing this because from the business end it makes sense, but I think they all should consider a very low or no price to add the ebook with the paper; because, though I buy the paper, I'd prefer reading it on the screen and having the option to highlight and note things, which I would not do with a paper book. That would be a means of keeping the paper book alive until they resort the paradigm of publishing to discover what the real cost of their ebooks will be.

Until they do that; I think that they are doing exactly what they plan by forcing people to reconsider staying with the paper bound work, because there is no visible and immediate incentive or savings in going digital. And for traditionally published and textbooks, that would mean that it might alter the buying habits of the people surveyed.