> "the performance [of paper vs e-reader] was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story."
Without seeing the paper, we don't know what measures were investigated and on how many points the e-reader experience was as effective as the paper experience. This article seems to be picking out one metric where there was a difference, but we don't know how large the absolute value of the difference is.
Sure would be nice to be able to read the paper and comment on the actual work.
[EDIT: this comment was in response to the original link to the Guardian article, since changed to link to a better NYT article.]
> "the performance [of paper vs e-reader] was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story."
Without seeing the paper, we don't know what measures were investigated and on how many points the e-reader experience was as effective as the paper experience. This article seems to be picking out one metric where there was a difference, but we don't know how large the absolute value of the difference is.
Sure would be nice to be able to read the paper and comment on the actual work.
[EDIT: this comment was in response to the original link to the Guardian article, since changed to link to a better NYT article.]