

IPad and Kindle Reading Speeds - Hates_
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html

======
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.

~~~
anemecek
I ordered a kindle yesterday ($250, 1/2 of the iPad price, for a refurbished
DX from amazon warehouse deals was just irresistible) and even though I do not
have any first hand experience yet, I think that the device has a lot of
potential. I have a lot of PDF textbooks that I never get around to read
because I just cannot read on a computer for longer periods of time.
Therefore, I intend to use the kindle for reading through the textbook the
first time I work my way through it (which will likely take a long time and
therefore the e-ink comes in handy) and search through the PDF on my computer
if I, at some point in the future, need to reference something. As far as I
know kindle caches pages before and after the current page and accessing these
pages is exactly the type of movement that one performs then reading through a
textbook the first time through. Can anyone who has experience with kindle say
if my assumptions wrong?

~~~
ghshephard
You may want to consider returning the Kindle DX if your use case is PDF
reading, particularly if you have any complex graphics, and absolutely if
random flipping through the document occurs.

I own a K1 and K2 - and nothing beats them, not even paper, for bright
sunlight reading. I had a DX for about a week, but found that the page
flipping performance in textbook class PDFs, particularly when I was looking
for a random page was poor, and, the Achilles's heel - complex graphics took
several seconds to render.

The iPad is a better tool for that use case, and, with dropbox + goodreader,
it takes me all of 5 seconds to bounce my PDF onto my iPad for future reading
(With the bonus that my iPhone now has access to the same PDFs, and, I have
full access to color documents.)

I do 100% of my summer reading outside on my Kindle, though - wouldn't even
attempt it on an iPad, even with the matte screen that I've added.

~~~
anemecek
Actually the thing that sold me on kindle was that you can use dropbox with it
as well, trough the dropbox website interface. I can imagine that it will be a
sub-par experience and probably it will not take 5 seconds but oh well. And
yes, the plan was to try it out and return it in the worst case.

~~~
weaksauce
The iPad has a dropbox app too. It allows you to open up pdfs, word docs, and
other items.

------
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.

~~~
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.

~~~
jrockway
But regular books have page turns, and they take longer than the Kindle's page
turns. And the article still says the iPad and Kindle are both slower than
regular books.

So it must be something else.

------
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".

~~~
henning
Jakob Nielsen knows that's vague and hard to understand.

~~~
amalcon
Perhaps so, but the comparison between the Kindle and iPad is easily the least
interesting part of the article. He didn't discover a significant difference,
and that's exactly what we all expected.

------
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]

