Difference between reading on line or on page

[dflower]

For years news reports lament the amount of time we humans now spend in front of a screen. Time online is detrimental to young and old alike. Children should not be looking at the TV or the smartphone screen. I will not get into the “growing horns” study. Reportedly, we also are not reading as much as we used to.
What is the difference between reading on a page and on a screen?
If I read the New York Times on my laptop and my neighbor reads it printed on paper, are we being affected in different ways?
What about the e-reader? Is Moby Dick a different whale if the words appear in ink or in light?
Is this about the dreaded blue light? Is it that most people don’t really read online but just watch a video?
What do you think?

[QuickSilver]

I think I’ve noticed a marked decline in my recreational reading enjoyment since I’ve switched to electronic forms, including Kindle. However, no sign of horns.

[Joey_P]

I think it’s more of an attention (or lack thereof) thing, especially with how easy it is to get distracted when the thing your reading has can offer up endless amount of other entertainment with little more then moving your finger.
Ask a kid to read Moby Dick or the NYT on their smartphone and see how long it is before they’re on Instagram or playing a game.

It’s the fast moving games, short youtube/vine videos and social media platforms that are being for reducing attention span. When you’re used to everything lasting a minute or so, it’s hard to sit down and read a book for an hour.

I’ve never been big on the ‘no screens’ thing, but I’d hope that a ‘no screens’ parent wouldn’t count an e-reader as a screen, especially if it’s only loaded with books.

[UnwittingAmericans]

A book or magazine doesn’t go “ding” or “ping” or whistle “yoohoo” at you every 30 seconds.

Documents of any length, I print them. A screen is fine for shit about Chrissy Teigen or who’s clapping back at who now. And you can’t get kitty videos in print form.

I don’t read a lot of full documents in print in one shot. But more frequent interruption lessens your absorption. And the Chrissy Teigen shit fucks you up worse than simply lessening your absorption.

[markn_1]

There’s been some research about this. Here’s a Scientific American article:

The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens

This article is 6 years old so it’s a little dated in how it talks about reading digital text.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@markn_1

There’s been some research about this. Here’s a Scientific American article:
The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens | Scientific American

You beat me to it. I was just about to link to that.

evidence from laboratory experiments, polls and consumer reports indicates that modern screens and e-readers fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss and, more importantly, prevent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way. In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension. Compared with paper, screens may also drain more of our mental resources while we are reading and make it a little harder to remember what we read when we are done. A parallel line of research focuses on people’s attitudes toward different kinds of media. Whether they realize it or not, many people approach computers and tablets with a state of mind less conducive to learning than the one they bring to paper.

Also: Do we read differently on paper than on a screen?

an interesting finding in some of the empirical studies is that we tend to overestimate our own reading comprehension when we read on screen compared to on paper. Some studies have shown that we believe we have understood the text better, when we read from a screen. However, it has been found that we tend to read faster on screen and consequently understand less compared to when reading from paper. This is a very new research topic and there are studies that have not found any differences in this area. As a result, a lot more studies are required to be able to make conclusions with any level of certainty. However, such findings do highlight something very important, namely that we may have a different mental attitude to what we read on a screen.

So, there are at least suggestions that, aside from the distractions that Joey P and UnwittingAmericans, there may be a difference in the reading experience itself on a screen vs. on paper.

[Hari_Seldon]

I find that certain kinds of books just don’t work well on my e-reader. If they have maps of the action or a large dramatis personae, I can’t readily switch back and forth the way I can with a bookmark. On the other hand, a book with extensive endnotes can work well since you can switch back and forth. I have never really tried reading the NY Times online. Maybe I should since the love "continued"s that I loath. I am in the process of editing a paper and I find it very satisfying to read online, switch to the editor, make changes, recompile and see the result instantly (and, incidentally, instantly correct new errors made during the editing). My coauthors always want hard copy of the latest version, but I don’t. So it varies. I see no evidence that my comprehension varies with the medium or that I read faster or slower.

[Voyager]

Since I subscribe to the Times, I have access to it online, but I seldom use it except for specific articles. Reading the real paper forces you past interesting headlines that you can stop and read. Unexpected stuff, that you might never see or pay attention to online.

I have an old Kindle which I mostly use on trips, since it is easy to load a bunch of books from the library on it, and I don’t have to carry them with me. I don’t see that much difference between reading fiction on it and reading fiction from a normal book. If the fiction has footnotes it is a pain, since my Kindle is not a touch screen version. I tried reading a technical book in pdf on it and it was a real pain. On the other hand I’m reading the Federalist Papers on it, and it’s fine for that.
I have so many books in my library unread that I’m never going to go exclusively to Kindle.

Internet connected reading, no way. Too many distractions.

[Roderick_Femm]

I don’t like reading on a backlit screen like a PC or a tablet, it’s hard on my eyes, and I already spend too much time online as it is. My Kindle, on the other hand, feels just like reading a book, and a damn sight more convenient. I finish a book, go back to the list screen and start another book, even if I’m far from home. I get lots of free books from the library to borrow, and (even though they don’t think so) I can keep them for as long as I want as long as I’m in airplane (i.e. not receiving info) mode.

So, I’d rather read on paper than online, and I’d generally rather read on a Kindle than either of those. But I’ll choose paper for magazines and newspapers, on the rare occasions when I read one. I find them confusing to navigate on my Kindle.