Nielsen's research motivation was clear: e-book readers and tablets are finally growing in popularity and they are likely to become an important means of engaging in long-form reading in the future. However, such devices will only succeed if they are better than reading from PC or laptop screens and - the mother of all reading devices - the printed book. Nielsen and his assistants therefore performed a readability study of tablets, including the Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle, and compared these with books. You can read the article in full in your own time. It's a brief read at circa 1000 words. Essentially, Nielsen's key findings were that reading from a book is significantly quicker than reading from tablet devices. Reading from the iPad was found to be 6.2% slower and the Kindle 10.7% slower.
I recall ebook readers emerging in the late 1990s. At that time ebook readers were mysterious but exciting devices. After some above average ebook sales for a Stephen King best seller in 1999/2000 (I think), it was predicted that ebook readers would take over the publishing industry. But they didn't. The reasons for this were/are complex but pertain to a variety of factors including conflicting technologies, lack of interoperability, poor usability and so forth. There were additional issues, many of which some of my ex-colleagues investigated with their EBONI project. One of the biggest factors inhibiting their proliferation was the issue of eye strain. The screens on early ebook readers lacked sufficient resolution and were simply small computer screens which came with the associated eye strain issues for long-form reading, e.g. glare, soreness of the eyes, headaches, etc. Long-form reading was simply too unpleasant; which is why the emergence of the Kindle, with its use of e-ink, was revelatory. The Kindle - and readers like it - have been able to simulate the printed word such that eye strain issues are no longer an issue.
Nielsen has already attracted criticism regarding flaws in his methodology; but in his defence he did not purport his study to be rigorously scientific, nor has he sought publication of his research in the peer-reviewed research literature. He wrote up his research in 1000 words for his website, for goodness sake! In any case, his results were to be expected. Applegeeks will complain that he didn't use enough participants, although those familiar with the realities of academic research will know that 30-40 participant user studies are par for the course. However, there is one assumption in Nielsen's article which is problematic and which has evaded discussion: iStrain. Yes - it's a dreadful pun but it strikes at the heart of whether these devices are truly readable or not. Indeed, how conducive can a tablet or reader be for long-form reading if your retinas are bleeding after 50 minutes reading? Participants in Nielsen's experiment were reading for around 17 minutes. Says Nielsen:
"On average, the stories took 17 minutes and 20 seconds to read. This is obviously less time than people might spend reading a novel or a college textbook, but it's much longer than the abrupt reading that characterizes Web browsing. Asking users to read 17 minutes or more is enough to get them immersed in the story. It's also representative for many other formats of interest, such as whitepapers and reports."
by Nielsen, but the iPad is ultimately no different to the failed e-reading technologies of ten years ago. In fact, some might say it is worse. I mean, would you want to read P.G. Wodehouse through smudged fingerprints?! The results of Nielsen's study are therefore interesting but they could have been more informative had participants been reading for longer. A follow up study is order of the day and would be ideally suited to an MSc dissertation. Any student takers?!
(Image (eye): Vernhart, Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic)
(Image (beware): florian.b, Flickr, Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic)
No comments:
Post a Comment