Why people read less online than with print
People spend less time reading online news than reading printed newspapers because reading online is more tiring.
I've no hard and fast evidence to offer. This is my observation. It would make a great research project.
People certainly do read less online than in print. I discovered this today in a different context at Newspapers online – the real dilemma.
Australian online media expert Ben Shepherd looks at why online newspapers earn less money than print newspapers. He says it comes down to engagement. A typical online consumer of Rupert Murdoch's products spends just 12.6 minutes a month reading News Corporation web sites. In comparison the average newspaper reader spends 2.8 hours a week with their printed copy.
There are other factors. But the technology of online reading is part of the problem:
- Newspapers and magazines are typically printed at about 600 dots per inch.
- Computer screens typically display text and pictures at 72 pixels per inch. Some display at 96 dots per inch.
- The contrast is usually far better on paper than on-screen.
- Screens include distracting elements. This is particularly bad where online news sites have video or audio advertising on the same page as news stories.
Lower resolution means it takes more effort for a human brain to convert text into meaningful information. Screens are fine for relatively small amounts of text, but over the long haul your eyes and your brain will get tired faster. You’ll find it harder to concentrate and your comprehension will suffer.
I’m a reader who can stay up all night with a decent novel, but I found it hard to stick with most eBook readers for more than ten minutes.
It's also worth noting here that many sub-editors and proof readers will find more errors on a printed page than on a screen.
What does this mean?
- The online reading revolution is going ahead without anyone worrying about readability, but it'll be better when improved screen technology arrives.
- In the back of my mind I suspect this is one reason the 140 word Twitter is so successful. Again, I'll leave the research project to someone else.
Hmm… it’s a bit more head-scratchingly complex (for me at least), unfortunately.
Newspapers are printed in 85 lines per inch and magazines, anywhere from 135 to 200 lpi. That however doesn’t translate into dots per inch as such, and there’s also the issue of paper being reflective and screens being radiant to consider.
One thing that I note is that if you move the text up and down, which you do as you scroll on a screen, it’s that much harder to read. This is what you don’t do with a piece of printed material – you hold it still and move your eyes instead up and down the page.
Juha
9 Jun 09 at 7:26 pm
72 DPI is long gone!!
For what it’s worth, the two screens I spend vast hours each day reading are 133 DPI (17″ MacBook Pro 1920×1200), and 160 DPI (iPhone).
I’d put both very close in readability to 300 DPI laser printers due to them having a large number of gray levels to do anti-aliasing, while laser printers are strictly on/off. That seems to be worth a factor of two in pure resolution.
I’ve read probably 50 full length novels on the iPhone, including such massive tomes as e.g. Dune, the Foundation trilogy, Stranger in a Strange Land. It’s great, even with these 46 year old eyes.
Bruce Hoult
9 Jun 09 at 9:24 pm
The numbers you quote are for halftones, which applies only to continuous tone illustrations, not (normal) text.
Imagesetters used to make plates for printing are usually run at either 2540 or 3380 DPI. That’s not necessary for the text, but it does make a big difference with how many shades you can display in a halftone.
Bruce Hoult
9 Jun 09 at 9:50 pm
I’m out of date then.
I’ve definitely published magazines at 300 lines per inch — but that was some time ago. When I started in newspapers they were printed using hot metal — which I’m told is like 1000+ dpi.
billbennettnz
9 Jun 09 at 9:31 pm
Juha,
I think those numbers are for halftones not type.
billbennettnz
9 Jun 09 at 9:37 pm
I’ve also heard it argued that the screen refresh rate has a lot to do with it. While we consciously see a solid image, our brain+eye operate a lot faster than 50-60 Hz and have to do ‘mental and physical work’ to process it. This is why it takes us a little while to reorient ourselves when scrolling on a screen vs scanning a printed page.
Not sure how this applies to LCD screens though.
Stephen Knightly
10 Jun 09 at 11:05 am
@Bruce checked my 18 month old 17 inch LCD, it’s 96 dpi. The display on my slightly older Thinkpad is 72 dpi. I’ve noticed that Windows tends to display text in smaller sizes as the screen resolution increases, is that not the case with the Mac?
billbennettnz
10 Jun 09 at 11:31 am
My LCD refreshes at 75 Hz, it’s a definite improvement on the old CRT for reading, but it’s still harder than reading on paper.
billbennettnz
10 Jun 09 at 11:33 am
I can’t help it if you’re still buying old-tech low resolution screens! Better stuff is available now and it’s .. well .. better.
OS X displays everything using the same number of pixels, no matter what the resolution of your screen is. Which I like: — Monaco 9 is great at 133 dpi, even though it’s only actually 4.9 pts in physical size.
I find that the modern glossy screens, as found optionally on the MacBook Pros the last couple of years, also help hugely in making small text contrasty and crisp. Matt screens are just full of fuzziness.
Bruce Hoult
10 Jun 09 at 2:19 pm
LCDs don’t refresh so that number is meaningless. It could say 10 Hz and it would be just the same.
Bruce Hoult
10 Jun 09 at 2:20 pm
[...] Why people read less online than with print (billbennettnz.wordpress.com) [...]
News Blogs for Your News Fix | How to Blog | Make Money Blogger
21 Jun 09 at 5:41 pm
[...] First, people are less prepared to read long pieces online than short articles. [...]
Better writing: Snappy works best online at bill bennett : knowledge workers
14 Apr 10 at 2:47 pm
[...] no question I catch more errors in my work when proof-reading paper documents. I'm not alone. Online reading is tiring and online proofing is less [...]
Paperless office ‘fallacy’ - bill bennett : knowledge workers
10 May 10 at 1:27 pm