I also think a 10% swing in reading speed is… meaningless. I’m a former Kindle 2 user (current iPad), and in both cases, the absolute convenience outweighs any difference in how fast I can read. That said, there is a sure delay on page turning in eInk screens, and it’s disingenuous to factor in hitting the button a line in advance – it’s still a disadvantage… not one that can’t be mitigated, but it’s a drawback. Besides, many a time have I done that, and had to go back, having not quite finished on schedule that sentence.

To be honest, there really isn’t a huge eye fatigue factor for most people. Yes, at the beach, there’s a real disadvantage with the iPad, but it’s no different than at night when the glare from a booklight is a disadvantage with the Kindle… except I read at night more than I’m reading outside.

I read your site regularly, but to be honest, it’s hard sometimes, since your opinions are often rendered as fact, and your bias towards the Kindle is quite obvious. It’s just not the perfect device, nor is it perfect for everybody.

To the commenter who said people should choose their own books – that wouldn’t work, as reading speed can vary by the book material itself. Reading a science heavy research book is going to be slower reading than the latest John Grisham book. Rereading something I’ve already read will have me reading faster, arguably at the expense of comprehension.

I’d like to see about 25-30 people reading an hour at a time, for three sessions. The sessions can split by material, maybe a light fiction novel, a light biography, and something rather heavy.

But still – why slower on the iPad? Newness explains some of it but. Is that all there was? I wonder if the dictionary came into play. How often have you been reading and came across an unfamiliar word where context let you probably guess the meaning. Did you look it up when you had to grab a dictionary? How about with the Kindle or an iPad reader?

I love my Kindle, but when I read the test, the immediate thing for me was how small the sample size was. 32 people reduced to 24 isn’t really enough to find anything important, even if the test had been constructed well.

But, in essence, the test is flawed by choosing short stories — people who love reading books don’t necessarily love reading short stories.

I sure don’t!

And I think there must be a way to make a test that would include people choosing their own books and reading for a few hours in various conditions. I’m not a test designer, but something like that with a larger test group would probably give us more interesting data and more authoritative conclusions.

Of course, I’m not sure where the money for a good test would come from that would seem neutral.

If you don’t read 1,000 pages or more a month, don’t bother with the Kindle, you’re a skimmer or a dilettante, not a reader.,

Our mind is likely to wander from the task.

I agree… this test (as reported) is hardly rigorous and probably useless.