This article significantly misrepresents the study. It says that children prefer to read on paper than on devices, which indicates that children were asked about their preferences, or asked about habits that are likely to reveal their preferences. This is not the case.
Subjects were never asked which they liked better, and the underlying research report clearly indicates that the differences in their behavior between reading on screen and on paper could be due to their lack of awareness of where to get free ebooks.
Since kids don't have credit cards, they wouldn't be able to buy Kindle books, and might not even have an account. So looking at observational data about what kids use to read books is not a good way to determine what kids "prefer" in this instance. You'd have to give kids the same books in paper and on digital and then see which one they end up reading.
The underlying research is fine, and appropriately nuanced. The article describing it is misleading clickbait.
Both the article and the research is a giant cliché.
Neither seems to have a basic understanding of either technology or even perceptions of technology.
>Challenging the assumption that all young people prefer to read on screens
Who believes this? They don't seem to source this claim. It's seems like academic karma whoring. State people believe something they don't actually believe, disprove it so you get karma.
I prefer having a physical book. Flicking through pages to reread sections, highlighting and margin notes are not yet seamless with the reading app I'm using.
But Getting a tablet has increased the amount I'm reading by at least a factor of 4. It is now so easy to buy books after reading a recommendation online. The free sample feature makes it so I don't buy a book I won't like, And the built in dictionary has me looking up new words without pausing my reading flow.
Physical is great but I don't think I'll ever go back for reading fiction. Having said all that my kids will be getting physical books. The distractions in electronic devices is something I'm still struggling with.
> Having said all that my kids will be getting physical books. The distractions in electronic devices is something I'm still struggling
Having four kids myself, I would never have tried to start them reading on a device. Kids don't start reading novels or textbooks, they have books that are physically interactive in a way that doesn't translate very well to a screen. Starting out, children learn by touch and taste as much as with ears or eyes.
Even at ages four to six, many kids need a physical or tactile element to help them learn. My youngest used to love turning the pages back and forth to talk about the differences in the characters of Dr Seuss books like Go Dog Go. The physical interaction of turning a page to demonstrate progression of time in a story is something that doesn't seem to translate as well when swiping or tapping in a tablet.
There is something interesting happening with the kids these days,
They are being handed over tablet devices as soon as possible.
My concern rises from the hand movements which is in a swipe , How Does this restriction of movement in the formative years affect the child in the later years?
I'm often reading in bed or on the sofa where highlighting would be a pain with a physical book - with my Kindle app it's so easy.
What's even better is how quickly I can access my highlighted notes. I often find I'm in a conversation with someone and say, "hey there's a great quote on the topic we are discussing from book I read years ago - let me show it to you".
I just wish the "Your Highlights" interface online was faster and better designed. It just feels like they did it to placate users but didn't put a lot of care or effort into making it feel like a great experience.
A few times I've wanted to make a script to download all those highlights into a text file, but I've never bothered... would still be really nice though.
It's funny because I'm the exact opposite. I have to have paper books for my pleasure reading, but most of my technical or higher brow books I keep digital since it's massively cheaper and easier to search/bookmark/leave notes/etc.
Yes, we read more now that tablets are here, but at least in my experience, we kind of also ´cheat´, skipping pages (are there even pages anymore?) and glancing ahead... in my more physical book reading times i felt skipping pages was a betrayal of the author´s intentions, now i am just in a hurry and really want only to know how it ends and if all the knots are tied. And we can do this beacause electronic books have put A LOT of lesser readings in our hands, books we never would have bought or even read in our physical book reading times. It´s just like buying a 1 dollar app: you play with it for a few days, then forget about it.
For me it is opposite - strongly prefer reading on phone and strongly prefer buying books in physical store. I dislike that I am supposed to buy e-books based on much smaller information.
While I still use my Kindle for travel, I've actually purchased more hardcover books SINCE I got a Kindle, then I have at any other point in my life. Using the Kindle, just gave me even more appreciation for the experience of holding a book, flipping the pages, the smell, that whole tactile experience that is just missing otherwise.
I'm also making a serious attempt to distance myself from technology for at least part of the day. Smartphones have essentially taking over my life, and I'm actively removing myself from that as well.
I have the opposite experience. I read a lot on the train and I read a lot of books on the Kindle I probably would have avoided before because they seemed so large that I didn't want to carry them or they just seemed imposing. I also find reading for extended periods on the Kindle far more comfortable. The only thing I don't prefer it for is books where I know I'll be flipping back and forth a lot (textbooks, reference manuals, etc.).
Even at home, I prefer the ergonomics of holding a pad that's flat open. Paperbacks - new ones especially - require pressure to keep open, usually a thumb/pinky grip. Often the words nearer the spine are read at an angle and with less light. Kindle is more evenly lit and more comfortable to hold.
As mentioned above, it's great for linear reading e.g. fiction; poor for computer books.
In my experience desktop PDF readers are better than paper for technical books - maybe there are good tablet readers for them too, but they'll allow you to jump directly to sections and make bookmarks in an instant rather than searching through random physical pages and holding your finger in different spots. Displaying the full tree of the book's index while you read through interesting sections is incredibly valuable.
I find it hard to read any technical book on something other than the computer I'm using it on though. Without being able to copy and paste to try things out on my own I tend to learn absolutely nothing.
Even without the travel aspect, I just find I'm way less likely to avoid a book because "it's too long to start now." Also having the book in my hot little hands almost instantly is another thing that encourages more reading (although also forking more money over to Amazon).
If the tactile experience means that much I'd think you'd be too pissed to read anything from the past 40 years or so except from small specialist publishers. Even hardbacks now are mostly cheaply made disposable products, with whatever money that goes into their production apparently wasted on the dust jacket.
Until I got a Kindle Voyage, I found the Kindle reading experience to be subpar to books (but still more convenient in most cases). But with the higher resolution of the Voyage (300ppi), better backlight, and most importantly, buttons to move forward/back instead of swiping, I now prefer the Voyage over paper books.
Much easier to read one-handed on the train, and having a good backlight makes for convenient reading at night (with the screen brightness turned down enough that it doesn't bother my partner). I've pretty much stopped buying paper books now, while with my old kindle, I'd alternate between paper and digital books.
What is the color like for the Voyage backlight? Lately I've been using my iPhone in night-shift mode as a reading light with paper books.
It may just be psychological, but I do seem to fall asleep easier than I did with a regular white LED reading light. At the very least I haven't found myself still reading at 3am wondering why I'm still awake.
It's not just psychological. According to some measurements the cold light from screens, neon lights, white LEDs etc. causes an increased heart rate, making it more difficult to fall asleep.
The Voyage is supposed to have a warmer backlight mode, but I only have experience with the Paperwhite(I only read during the day anyways).
It's a typical white LED, probably on the bluish end of the spectrum, but I don't know the color temperature. My problem is more staying awake to read the next chapter than being able to fall asleep, and that doesn't matter whether I'm reading on the kindle, a tablet, or a paper book. I tend to fall asleep (and wake up) around the same time every night regardless of whether I read beforehand or not.
Well, the article itself is not discussing the merits of Kindle Voyage so the comment looked out of place for me. And certainly marketing via internet comments is a thing, even on HackerNews. I think it's called "integrated" marketing, or whatever the current newspeak for that one is. Regardless my comment was mostly made tongue-in-cheek
Sorry, not meant to be an Amazon shill, just pointing out that eBook readers are getting better. I thought it was on topic for an article about reading books on paper compared to screens -- not all screens are created equal. The Kindle doesn't have quiet the contrast of paper, but other than that, the print quality is comparable.
I found the screen to be much clearer than my previous reader, I can't see the pixels at all. But the biggest improvement is in the button to change pages.
The original kindle had buttons too, but I didn't own one and only used it a couple times.
Study seems to exclude e-ink, (when grouping kindle with iPad, I assume they mean the android tablet) while many of the comments here are arguing about e-ink vs books.
I'm not surprised by the study. My 2.5 year old would much rather watch something if the tablet is available than read. Even the interactive and pictures + audio books aren't much competition.
And, while the plural of anecdote isn't data, here's another vote for reading on dead trees, whether it is for enjoyment or work. (I typically print a hard copy of the datasheet for any component I consider using; I keep the PDF handy on screen for searching, then study the hard copy, make annotations and highlights as I go.
A colleague of mine refers to my bookshelf of datasheets as 'Odd's 20th-century Kindle'. :-)
I think that in some cases, it can even be helpful for source code.
There have been a couple of times where I wanted to understand how an interesting library or bit of code worked, so I printed the code out and made notes right on the page as I read through it.
I'm sure I could have accomplished the same thing digitally - but for some reason, the knowledge seems to 'stick' more quickly when I'm writing out the notes physically on the same page as the code.
IIRC, one of the developers in 'Coders at Work' liked to print out code he was working on to help him develop an understanding of it. I think it was Josh Bloch, but it's been a while since I've read the book.
All of this is also anecdotal, but I think it's worth a try for anyone who hasn't. It might be useless for most people, but I believe in experimenting with different ways of absorbing information to find out what works best with your brain.
> There have been a couple of times where I wanted to understand how an interesting library or bit of code worked, so I printed the code out and made notes right on the page as I read through it.
I do this as well, although I usually get a page or two in, figure out what the code does, and regret printing out the rest. Still worth doing, but I need to train myself to waste less paper.
Ebooks are fine for quick referrals but I simply can't stand using them for sustained reading. If I'm engrossed in reading a paper book, I'll knock off a hundred pages without noticing the time. I try to do that on my iPad or a computer monitor and I'm edgy and disinterested in just a handful of pages.
Yeah, I recognize the valid criticisms of the Kindle, specifically it doesn't feel as nice as reading a paper book, but the ability to control brightness and font-size, alongside the super light weight of the Kindle makes for some very easy extended reading.
I cannot read longer books unless I'm reading on an ereader. Normal books are fine in paper or ebook, but if a book is >500 pages, I psych myself out when trying to read (and also find it unwieldy to read on public transit when I dont have a seat).
The other bit that I could not live without now is the time-left-in-chapter estimator. It's so much easier for me to get squirreled away for hours because I'll end a chapter and see the next one is only 12 minutes... repeat x 10.
I have a number of ebooks and PDFs, mostly references. I have a number of the reference books as both ebooks and paper books.
I just... Don't have the freedom with digital copies of things that I do with paper ones, and I refuse to have key knowledge DRM'd. Papers on PDF are alright (as in, I only print really important ones), but proprietary ebooks?
Im not trusting my only copy of professional knowledge to the people who silently removed copies of 1984. That would be insane.
Definitely, but there's plenty of ways to obtain legitimately without DRM, obtain legitimately and strip DRM or just straight up pirate books.
And the advantages from that point are excellent. I can read the same thing on my phone, e-reader or desktop, so it's a very fluid experience whatever I'm doing.
On the other hand, I routinely have to take a box of books to Goodwill, the library sale, or the dump. I can still refer to every digital work I've ever owned, whether on Amazon or pdf. So which is really a more secure way of containing knowledge?
I've just finished doing quite a bit of reading and research on this since e-books are big responsibility of mine as a librarian. The data seems to point to most people not having a really strong preference. There are a small percentage of people (less that 10%) that prefer ebooks and a larger percentage (30%+) that prefer physical books, but most people's preference is either complicated (they prefer one for a specific use case such as travel or technical books) or not that strong. We are looking to shift to a fulfillment model, which reduces collection crossover some. Most people just want to read their book and will take it however they can get it soonest. For what it's worth, I expect our ebook circulation to top out at about 30-35%, which is about where estimates of the commercial market are. Those estimates are complicated by Amazon's holding Kindle Direct numbers close the chest, which are probably fairly large.
It's more general to "ebooks". FWIW, Kindle's make up a plurality of our e-book circulation, but we don't know the ratio of black and white to tablets. Anecdotally, we see a fair amount of Fire Tablets, but that could just be because people using Fire Tablets need more help. The survey I'm referencing (along with some other supporting data) is Pew, so take that for what it's worth.
I think that the quality of intake of information is somewhat different when it comes to projected light vs reflected light. I think that with dyslexia printed words are slightly easier because it's easier to see the edge of the ink (so you can see the shape better), on a screen it's much harder to see the shapes in the letters. The dyslexia font thing helps a little but it's kinda gimmicky I think.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> I think that with dyslexia printed words are slightly easier because it's easier to see the edge of the ink
What e-book reader have you tried?
The more expensive Kindles have a high resolution, on my Paperwhite the edges of the letters are very sharp just like in a printed book or magazine, no matter how close I hold it to my face. Combined with the right backlight setting and some daylight it really looks like a printed page to me.
Well yeah; since right now kids are still human beings, the animal is just going to be far more receptive to staring at broad spectrum light than narrow spectrum light. That's before accounting for what we already know about human children needing way more tactile stimulation than adults.
Of course, 10 years from now when we've started optimizing our genetically engineered offspring for staring into the black mirror, all bets are off.
I (late 40s) love my eink ereader (a Kobo Aura HD) when reading for pleasure. I also use it for reading a lot of web-page articles away from the computer (via it’s pocket integration). I’ve read 205 books in the last three years[1] and I would say less than five were physical books.
On the other hand, almost all those books were fiction, read for pleasure. I would never read that amount on a tablet screen or any similar screen that emits its own light.
I also find for technical topics, especially if they involve lots of diagrams or tables, I prefer physical over electronic because the ability to navigate around and annotate is so much faster and superior.
§
My kids, who are now in the teens and both avid readers, prefer physical books over electronic almost exclusively. They are willing to wait weeks to get hold of a physical version of an eagerly anticipated tome rather than get the electronic version immediately.
The only time my daughter uses an eink reader is when something she really wants to read is only being published electronically, never physically. I have tried to get her interested in a few books or series I think she would like, but with the rare exception was unsuccessful unless I could provide a physical version of the book.
§
At the opposite end, my dad (late 70s) who while not quite a luddite is far from a digital native, has expressed interest in getting an ebook reader primarily because he can then change the text to a comfortable size for his failing eyesight.
I'm an indie publisher of utility nonfiction (i.e. how-to guides). Close to 90% of online unit sales are print. This number has actually risen in recent years as print has grown and ebook sales have remained flat or declined. There are lots of theories floating around on why this is so, but I have to say that Google and Apple have really dropped the ball while Amazon continues to blaze forward on many product and service fronts. For example: at one time the iPad ebook experience was vastly superior to the original Kindle, now with the Kindle Fire and Paperwhite (not to mention the Kindle iOS app) Amazon is in front.
For an analysis of trends in the industry check out the Author Earnings reports here: http://authorearnings.com/
We bought Kindles for both of my kids, as they expressed a sincere interest. Today, those devices collect a lot of dust. I can't put my finger on why. With my son (7), I do know he seems to really enjoy books that include pictures scattered throughout the text (e.g. Geronimo Stilton). For my daughter (9), who reads very thick paper books typically in series, I really don't know - so has a huge reading appetite and reads every chance she can get. It may be she has much easier access to paper versions. She almost never has to ask us to buy her a book as she can just go pick one up.
I should ask her. I do sometimes wonder if there is a bit of subliminal affection for the covers of books, too, to reinforce one's personal identity, which you never get with a black mirror.
Considering just the reading experience, I prefer physical books, too.
But there's more to consider, and eBooks are better and more convenient in every user case that I have.
I still buy a lot of physical books, but only from used book stores, and only when there's unlikely to ever be an eBook. If I'm buying a new book, it's going to be digital. The only exception is for outdoor guide books.
This is definitely true for my 7 year old daughter. She's an avid reader, but even when I buy a book she is very interested in reading (typically the next in a current series) on a Kindle rather than getting her a hard copy, she'll end up reading something else.
Fascinating - I am the exact opposite! I've found that for reading fictions - a narrative that mostly move forward - the limition of eink displays in freely flipping between pages to be less annoying.
I know this seems a common sentiment here, but I just don't get it. There is almost nothing better about a physical book vs. a Kindle, especially on the high-eng (e.g the Voyage). Whenever I've discussed this with people the only reason I seem to get is some vague sense of nostalgia.
- Non-random access: we are surprisingly good at knowing where in a book something we read was, and flipping back to it. While keeping our finger in the place or places we were. You can build a working stack of locations in paper that's a pain to do in every e-reader I've tried.
- Notes/Marginalia/Markup are available on both, but with vastly more expressiveness and options on paper (though without search)
- Share/re-share/bequeath
- Some evidence of better comprehension and retention of physical reading vs screens.
- No batteries required.
- Attractive physical objects can be a pleasure to own (and a pain in the ass when moving house)
> Notes/Marginalia/Markup are available on both, but with vastly more expressiveness and options on paper
I wouldn't want to annotate or highlight a paper book - that feels like damaging it.
> No batteries required.
Not really an issue for a Kindle-like device - it lasts about 30 days without a charge, which is long enough to read more books than I'd care to carry on a no-electricity trip.
Nostalgia is not my reason. Anything that requires a battery, DRM, a subscription, active bank account, various service accounts, and has a touchscreen that will do FSM-knows-what if you touch it the wrong way, is not convenient to me. There's always that looming feeling that the "book" will just stop working.
It's more than nostalgia -- interacting with a physical object is more stimulating than an e-reader. Paper books have a smell, a texture, and a colorful cover. You might remember where something happened in a story because of how many pages you held in your hand.
At least for me, the "fluff" ends up being quite practical. I often remember stuff by thinking back to where I saw it in the book. With a physical book, my brain associates content with where I read it on the page (left vs right), how far into the book it was (judging by the depth of the pages), and what the book looked/felt like and weighed. All of this lets me recall information more easily, because the physical sensations jog my memory. Maybe I don't remember the proof of some theorem right away, but then I remember it was on the right page, towards the end of the book, and then for whatever reason it comes back to me.
Perhaps I'm weird in this sense but I know a couple people who remember stuff similarly. It matters more for textbooks or academic literature where I'm trying to recall specific information; with novels it's not as necessary.
Sounds completely foreign to me. I'd love to see a study though on how common this is though.
I'm guessing a lot more people could remember the name of a concept that they could then easily search for in an ebook instead - seems a much more direct and practical benefit to me.
I'm not suggesting that at all. Ebooks do not necessarily lock you to any particular provider, especially if you're willing to strip DRM to get where you need to be. You can grep your whole collection with full control if you'd like.
A large percentage of the books I read are history or fantasy books with maps. It's such a pain to refer to the maps in a Kindle book that I almost never do it, and they are generally rendered illegibly anyway.
Another example is history books with image plates. In a physical book it's easy to flip to the plate section and skim through it rapidly, on a Kindle, no, and of course any color is lost.
There are other aesthetic qualities to books that are often lost, e.g. flip through a copy of Steven Johnson's Wonderland. Notice the color interstitial pages and the way images are integrated with the text. All lost on Kindle.
In general any sort of subtlety in layout/use of fonts is lost on Kindle (e.g. sidebars, or little italics at the margins summarize a given section)
There's of course the obvious issue of ease of passing on/reselling a book.
This is only a partial enumeration of the reasons I've reverted fully to print books after flirting with the Kindle.
Unfortunately, the source study treats iPads interchangeably with Kindles, and from there assumes any sort of computer attached to a screen that lets you read words is essentially the same. The interfaces aren't being considered for their own merits.
In addition to the points brought up by the others, physical objects that are readily visible serve as reminders and are much easier to introduce and share with guests than a purely verbal introduction and attempt to talk it up.
paper books are better for children I think because they need a lot of pictures, and e-readers really haven't gotten up to that level. Also, I think it's good for children to have physical books to hold and interact with that allow for no distractions.
As an adult though, I much prefer ebooks, it's more portable and convenient. I do almost all of my reading on e-readers now.
I prefer to read on my kindle. More convenient and can be used at night (paperwhite). I like to read, be it a paper book or an ebook. I don't see why the whole ebooks vs. paper is a thing, at all.
Subjects were never asked which they liked better, and the underlying research report clearly indicates that the differences in their behavior between reading on screen and on paper could be due to their lack of awareness of where to get free ebooks.
Since kids don't have credit cards, they wouldn't be able to buy Kindle books, and might not even have an account. So looking at observational data about what kids use to read books is not a good way to determine what kids "prefer" in this instance. You'd have to give kids the same books in paper and on digital and then see which one they end up reading.
The underlying research is fine, and appropriately nuanced. The article describing it is misleading clickbait.