gdgt

Yeah, the results were very close, and any common sense look at the methods used would point to a likely result that is biased towards paper (i.e. people unfamiliar with Kindles and iPads would possibly be distracted by the technology and/or take longer to turn pages, etc.)

I wonder who funded this study...and I wonder if reading speed actually matters. I read a lot slower than I'm capable of unless I'm skimming something. I doubt the medium is going to have any effect on my reading speed.

I agree.
17 minutes is a pretty ridiculous test to make conclusions about an entire book.
Additionally, were we told if the testers were familiar with the Kindle or iPad.
With such a small time sample, some unfamiliarity would make a drastic impact.

How about 1-3 hours ? I'm sure the iPad would score a lot worse then. Reading from a bright screen so long really strains your eyes

Can't say I agree. I owned a Kindle for some time and purchased an iPad, I've since read several books on the iPad for extended periods of time with no eye-strain at all and do prefer the iPad over the kindle for reading. Specifically because reading on iBooks feels more interactive, the pages move with your touch which is much like a book, it feels like a more tangible experience. In addition, I have major problems with the Kindle in terms of refresh time/page turns. Every time the page turns the screen goes black for a split second which is really distracting and when you're in a reading rythm distractions are a big deal, they pull you out of that world.

My biggest gripe about the iPad in terms of reading is that the pixel density is quite low (especially in comparison with iPhone 4) which can be noticed after some time reading. Also the weight of the device is an issue. Though it's quite flawed, I believe overall for reading experience it's still the best mostly due to its experience, on a kindle getting to a book or a page is a huge hassle, it's an annoyance that you deal with for a decent reading experience, on the iPad getting to those books is enjoyable which makes a big impact.

re: iBooks and 'pages move with your touch which is much like a book'.

This is something I hate about iBooks. It's so gimmicky. The purpose of an ebook is not to attempt to simulate a paper book but to present the content of a book in a way that benefits from technology. Turning pages is a limitation of paper books, not a feature.

In general though, the interactivity that tablets provide is going to be great for ebooks once publishers come to grips with it. I just hope they use it to enhance books rather than adding new ways to reproduce the limitations of paper books.

I would say the same thing were it not for iBooks implementation of quick page turn (which you can do by just tapping the right/left of the page once). I can play with the page when I want or I can quickly jump the page when I want, I think it's perfect frankly.

I have to disagree - I've loaded up the iPad with a few books and I can't read it in anywhere near the same way as the PRS-505 without suffering from 'flickering screen syndrome' among other issues after a while.

True, the superficial experience is a hundred times better because the response is immediate and the graphics look far more booklike... but I wouldn't put it in the same readability bracket than an e-reader, no way. The big difference is that I can get lost in a book with the Sony. I'm constantly looking around with the iPad to reset my vision or to give my eyes a break.

Based on this, I'll be looking to upgrade my e-reader (the 600 maybe?), not replace it with the iPad. More device sprawl... sigh

Possibly, but I'd be more interested if we had people who have read whole books on all three.

It does seem short, but it wouldn't be practical to test whole books because people don't typically read a whole book from start to finish in one sitting without breaks. Part of the testing included measurement of how fast people read the same content on various mediums.

I think the most interesting findings in this study are that the iPad and Kindle are basically comparable tablet e-readers, and that users found printed books more relaxing.

I agree with your second paragraph, but:

"It does seem short, but it wouldn't be practical to test whole books because people don't typically read a whole book from start to finish in one sitting without breaks."

But people also, on average, don't typically read for just 17 minutes. Like another person in this thread said, couldn't they have done at least an hour?

It certainly sounds like there is interest in a longer study, and it's good to have a starting point for it.

I think the biggest problem with the test (as superflush suggests) that they don't say whether the testees were familiar with the Kindle or iPad. When I read for the first time on e-ink I was so intrigued by the display and the gadget that I was a bit distracted from the reading. That would not happen with paper, which everyone is familiar with. Similarly, someone seeing an iPad for the first time would likely spend some of their energy on sizing up the device.

My personal experience is that I read slower on LCD because of the irritation of light shining at me; I find it difficult to concentrate for more than ten minutes. I read faster on paper and e-ink because it's comfortable to look at something that is actually physically there, and the text looks more 'pleasant'. I would guess that there is very little difference between paper and e-ink for me.

I find that when reading on my Kindle it SEEMS quicker because turning pages is quicker, it's quicker to pick it up and start reading, it's easier to hold, and it's easier to switch between books (I usually read two books at a time, a fiction and a non-fiction, and I usually switch from chapter to chapter).