Study wrongly suggests iPad readers skim, show poor retention

Hello all,

The participants didn't read the iPad first and then the newspaper as it was written. It was a translation mistake (our articles are translated from French). Actually, half the participants were asked to read the iPad first and the other half were asked to read the newspaper first.

The English version has been corrected. You can compare with the French version (http://www.miratech.fr/blog/eye-tracking-etude-iPad-vs-journal.html)

We apologize for this mistake.

Celine Denis, Miratech

This is why in the research community (biology for me), we do peer reviewing. If you don't have 50 odd sources in your paper, several electron microscope images and graphs, you're a fraud.

I don't know why you're even running this post. The "study" was "published" on Miratech's blog last November (and they did some more analysis in February), so it's neither worthwhile (thanks to the potential problems with methodology) nor timely.

However, not to quibble, but Miratech claims that they had users read "similar" articles first from the printed paper, and then from the iPad version. They didn't say they used the same article, so it's entirely possible (probable, I think) that participants were reading different articles.

However, there's still problems with their methodology. The mind fatigues easily, and studies have shown that we retain the most information at the beginning and end of a study session, not in the middle. So it's possible that users retained less when using the iPad simply because there wasn't enough time between the two tasks.

But more importantly, the video of the eye tracking for the iPad raises several issues: First, the content didn't appear to be well optimized for the iPad (Basically it either showed the same layout as the newspaper or what looks like a poorly implemented text view). Second, in order for the eye tracking to work, the iPad had to stay in a fixed position rather than in a position that simulates how a user would actually hold and interact with the device.

There have, however, been numerous peer-reviewed and published studies that report screen reading to be 10-25% slower than reading print media. It's not an anti-iPad thing.

You do realize this was a blog post you are referencing, right? The title of that post was "White Paper" and there are references within the article that suggest more details. They watered down an opinion just like you do everyday.

Like any blog, there's not enough resources (read pay) to do sound, rigorous journalistic investigations, so we rely on inflammatory discredits, or support of wild ideas, for an something that you're really not sure about - but it'll get readers! Yay you!

I, for one, believe the study probably has merit. I skim more on my iPad. But, then again, what wrong with that? Who gives a flip?

The plural of "medium" is "media."

It is hilarious to see the flawed study design, no details on the study, but comes to bold conclusion. Doing anything with iPad is not news-worthy:)

Wait what?


- Sent from my iPad.

Yes this study's methodology was flawed. But my gut feeling is the the basic argument is accurate: that retention of newspaper article content read on an iPad (or online for that matter; I think the iPad is a surrogate for online media in general) is lower than retention of traditional newspaper content.

Why do I believe this? I experience it myself.

Specifically why I believe this is true is due to the nature of electronic content. It is filled with distractions--links in the text, headlines to the side/bottom/within a text box within the main article content, and of course, flashing advertisement banners nearly everywhere. You cannot tell me that all of those elements don't distract your mind, even for a split second as your eyes flit across the page.

Studies (with sound methodology of course) have shown repeatedly that even a split second of distraction by additional content on a webpage serves to set the brain on a tangent from the original line of thought. I experience this all the time; I urge you all to pay attention to this in the future and see if you do too. Furthermore, the basic structure and strengths of the internet is geared towards distraction--everything is about links, links, links and advertising and that's what's how the WWW works and how companies make money.

A couple books I recommend on this subject are (note I have no connections at all with the authors, these were simply good books on the topic):
-The Shallows: What Is The Internet Doing to Our Brains
-Hamlet's Blackberry

I'll give TUAW some credit. They posted an article about how insane it was to suggest this study had any merit.

In addition, I would add that demographics are pertinent to this study as well. So... in conjunction with sample size, demographical variance within the sample has a huge part to play with comparing and an iPad to a newspaper. An iPad demands a comfort level with technology (albeit a small one since the iPad is so darn intuitive) which is beyond simply being someone who is literate.