Over the last few months, there has been plenty of debate over which is better: an iPad or a Kindle? The answer, it seems, is neither.
According to a recent study by Jacob Nielsen of the Nielsen Norman Group, it was faster for people to read standard print pages on paper than it was to read tablets and e-readers. Indeed, up to 10% faster.
In the study, people were asked to read a short story by Ernest Hemingway. "We picked Hemingway because his work is pleasant and engaging to read, and yet not so complicated that it would be above the heads of users,'' says Nielsen.
The subjects read the stories and then given a comprehension test. On average, the stories took 17 minutes and 20 seconds to read. "The iPad measured at 6.2% lower reading speed than the printed book, whereas the Kindle measured at 10.7% slower than print," the study says.
Will the iPad or Kindle replace the book? Yes and no. Having used an iPad, I find reading books on it difficult because I always seem to be tempted to navigate away to check an email, browse the web, or look for another book on the iBookstore. That doesn't happen when I'm reading a book. That might be me but I know I'm not Robinson Crusoe.
The other part is that no one is going to steal my $10 book when I'm on a train. It's a different story if I'm sitting there with an iPad.
Kindles and iPads will make a difference to publishing and particularly book stores. But the printed book isn't going anywhere. Besides, it's quicker to read.
no comment untill now