IPad and Kindle Reading Speeds

[anemecek]

They mention it in the text, but I would be more interested in performing these tests with longer texts so that the strengths of e-ink could really show.

[Herring]

I'd be interested in performing these tests without just novels (eg include textbooks that require flipping back&forth) so that the strengths of the iPad could really show.

[tinotopia]

I wonder how much of the speed differences are due to the time spent turning pages? The iPad generally turns pages faster than the Kindle (no matter what app you're using on the iPad), and most books present more text at once, so you have fewer page-turns to begin with.

[rdl]

I think the Kindle DX would also be a more fair comparison to the iPad (especially the new, twice the contrast ratio DX).

I have both, and actually use both. I would probably go with DX and Netbook if I were cost-constrained. The only time I read books on the iPad vs. the DX is when I'm in bed and don't want to turn on a room light, and even then, it's with the Kindle app. I use the iPad for plenty of non-book applications.

[pauljonas]

iPad turns pages much faster than the Kindle — I've found that flipping through pages is snappier than even the printed book (i.e., via either repeated taps or swipes). Also, Kindle is plagued (though it better than the B&N Nook I played with) with refresh delays whereas on iPad text is nearly always instantly rendered).

And advancing/rewinding to random points in a text — no comparison as Kindle not suited for that task; but on an iPad, it as easy (or superior) to a printed book.

[petercooper]

Studies are good but as a reader it feels like a subjective thing. At the end of the day, I read best on the device that I feel happiest and most successful in reading on. So far, that's the iPad. eInk may or may not have advantages but the usability of eInk devices like the Kindle has felt weak to me. I'll take an inferior screen on a system that feels right over any other. (I guess this explains why I'm a Rubyist too ;-))

[superk]

Kinda misleading title... "Thus, the only fair conclusion is that we can't say for sure which device offers the fastest reading speed."

[amalcon]

"However, the difference between the two devices was not statistically significant because of the data's fairly high variability. "

It would have been better to title it "Electronic and Paper Reading Speeds".

[edster]

Interesting information as always from useit. However, the conclusion of the test, which was that there wasn't a conclusion was chuckle inducing. Too bad they didn't throw the Kindle iPad app into the mix.

[jcapote]

There also needs to be a time-to-burnt-retinas speed

[WilliamLP]

> The iPad measured at 6.2% lower reading speed than the printed book, whereas the Kindle measured at 10.7% slower than print.

Wait a minute here... 6.2% slower is proven statistical significance, yet 4.2% slower is almost certainly random noise?

Are all article writers mathematically and statistically illiterate?

[henryw]

summary: the only fair conclusion is that we can't say for sure which device offers the fastest reading speed... But we can say that tablets still haven't beaten the printed book [in speed]