A Study of Reading with Dedicated E-Readers

by Miriam Schcolnik

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University 2001

We hereby certify that this dissertation, submitted by Miriam Schcolnik, conforms to acceptable standards and is fully adequate in scope and quality to fulfill the dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

______________________________ Gertrude W. Abramson, Ed.D. Chairperson of Dissertation Committee ______________________________ Marlyn K. Littman, Ph.D. Dissertation Committee Member ______________________________ George K. Fornshell, Ph.D. Dissertation Committee Member

_________________ Date

_________________ Date

_________________ Date

Approved:

______________________________ Edward Lieblein, Ph.D. Dean, Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences

_________________ Date

Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University 2001

A Study of Reading with Dedicated E-Readers

by Miriam Schcolnik April 2001

Abstract
Given the prediction that in the future our reading could be mainly digital and the fact that e-readers are one of the emerging technologies, we need to understand what these devices are suitable for. This study answered the following questions: What strategies do adult users of e-readers apply to reading in the new medium? Does the new medium lend itself more to certain purposes of reading? What kinds of texts do users read in dedicated e-readers? What characteristics should texts for e-reading have? Data were gathered using a web survey in which 105 people participated, and a case study in which five subjects were observed and interviewed. The findings of the research help clarify the strategies used in the e-reader medium, as well as preferred uses, types of texts, and e-reader characteristics. Attitudes towards e-readers are clearly positive among respondents. Both in e-reading for information and in e-reading for pleasure the most used strategy is paging. In ereading for pleasure navigation is almost exclusively linear. Most of the respondents prefer portrait layout and paging over scrolling. The most important feature of e-texts is a table of contents. Next in importance are hyperlinks, illustrations, page numbers, headings, and highlighted words. The most important features of e-readers are legibility, portability, easy navigation, ample storage, and ease of use. For the present generation of e-readers, it seems the medium lends itself more to reading for pleasure. Other likely purposes of e-reading are escape, staying informed, review and study, in that order. E-readers have not been around too long, but for most respondents using an e-reader has become a normal activity, having replaced (totally or partially) computer and print reading. Most respondents prefer reading with their dedicated devices than reading from their desktop computers. This investigation contributes to our knowledge about e-reading, users preferences, and the effects of the new technology on reading practices. Future research could check the reasons for specific preferences, why navigation strategies are more common than study strategies, and the effect of e-readers on attention while reading.

Acknowledgments
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and assistance of many people. I am deeply grateful to the head of my dissertation committee, Dr. Gertrude Abramson, who was encouraging throughout the whole process, and whose insightful guidance gave direction to the investigation. My sincere thanks to the other committee members, Dr. Marlyn Littman and Dr. George K. Fornshell, who provided excellent feedback and suggestions and thus contributed to the quality of the final report. I am grateful to my children, Jaime, Diana, and Shai, for volunteering to help at different stages of the project, by reviewing my questionnaire, video-taping the observation sessions, and serving as extremely helpful subjects. I am indebted to my friends and colleagues, Sara Kol, Tamar Feuerstein, Sharon Avni, Melissa Feldman, Orly Avital, Janet Hallmark, and Norma Gordon-Rowe, for their cooperation at different stages of the project. I also want to express my appreciation to Shai Zorea, whose programming talents made it possible to efficiently collect the data and format them for statistical analysis. Last but certainly not least, I owe special recognition to my husband, Saul, who has been my partner and my mentor throughout, and whose invaluable support and friendship gave me the strength to study and complete this difficult journey.

Note: The photographs in this dissertation are printed with the permission of the subjects and the photographer.

Table of Contents
Abstract iii Acknowledgments iv Introduction 1 Problem Statement and Goal 1 Relevance and Significance 2 Barriers and Issues 3 Research Questions 3 Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions 4 Limitations 4 Delimitations 5 Assumptions 5 Definition of Terms 5 Summary 7 Review of the Literature 8 Introduction 8 Section 1: What Reading Implies 9 Text Processing and Reading Strategies 9 Functions or Purposes of Reading 12 Section 2: Reading on Paper vs. Reading on Screen 14 Section 3: Changes In The Way We Read 18 Dealing with Digital Text 18 Characteristics of Hypertext and the Way We Read It 19 New or Old Literacies? 21 Section 4: Electronic Books and Libraries 21 Section 5: Dedicated Reading Devices 23 Historical Development 23 Interface Design and Desirable Features 24 E-Reader Usability 28 Digital Text Usability 29 Section 6: Web Surveys 31 Usability of Web Questionnaires 32 Summary 33 Methodology 37 Introduction 37 Research Methods 37 Specific Procedures 40 v

1. The Survey 40 Resource Requirements 40 Subjects 40 Instrumentation 41 Formats for Result Presentation 43 2. The Case Study 44 Resource Requirements 45 Subjects 45 Instrumentation 45 Administration 45 Formats for Result Presentation 46 Summary 46 Results 47 Introduction 47 The Survey 47 Data Analysis 48 Data Collection 48 Analysis 48 Findings 48 Characteristics of Survey Respondents 48 Correlations with Demographics 50 E-Reader Use 51 E-Reading Purposes 51 Strategies Used When E-Reading for Information 53 Strategies Used When E-Reading for Pleasure 54 Media Used for Different Genres 54 Media Preferred for Different Genres 55 Preferred Layout and Navigation Mode 57 Desirable Characteristics of E-Texts 57 Attitude Towards E-Readers 58 Importance of E-Reader Features 60 The Case Study 61 Methodology 61 Observations 61 Interviews 66 Summary of Results 68 How do e-reader features influence the process of reading? 68 What strategies are applied to reading in the new medium? 69 Do the characteristics of the reading device help readers or bother them? 69 Do e-readers lend themselves more to certain texts and reading purposes? 70 What should texts be like to be read with these devices? 70 Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations and Summary 71 Conclusions 71 vi

Users Habits 71 E-Reading Strategies 74 Users Preferences 78 E-Reading Purposes 79 Desirable Device Characteristics 81 Desirable Text Characteristics 81 Implications 83 Do the characteristics of the reading device help readers or bother them? 83 Do e-readers lend themselves more to certain texts and reading purposes? 84 What strategies are applied to reading in the new medium? 84 What characteristics should texts have to be read with these devices? 85 Recommendations 86 Summary 87 Appendix A - Technical Appendix 94 Dedicated E-Readers, PDAs and Pocket PCs 94 Other E-Readers 102 New Developments 103 Electronic Ink, or E-Ink 103 Electronic Paper 104 IBM Electronic Newspaper 104 Digital Comic Books 105 E-Readers for the Disabled 105 Scalable Font Sizes 105 The Braille Reader 105 Computer Generated Voice Software 106 Appendix B - Web Survey Questionnaire 107 Appendix C - Cover Letter 113 Appendix D - IRB Permission 115 Appendix E Observation Protocol 116 Appendix F Interview Questions 118 Appendix G Letters of Request 121 Appendix H Announcements 123 1. Excerpted from the Digital Worm Newsletter: 123 2. Excerpted from eBook Net News: 123 3. Excerpted from Papyrus News: 125 4. From Librarians EBook Newsletter: 126 5. Excerpted from Digital Worm: 127 6. Excerpted from eBook Broadcast Bulletin: 127 Appendix I Interview Data 129 Reference List 137 vii

List of Tables
1. Means of Consecutive E-Reading Hours by Gender 50 2. Purposes Respondents Could Accomplish with an E-Reader 52 3. Strategies Used When E-Reading for Information 53 4. Strategies Used When E-Reading for Pleasure 54 5. Media Used for Different Genres 55 6. Media Preferred for Different Genres 56 7. Desirable Characteristics of E-Texts 58 8. Attitudes and Opinions about E-Readers 59 9. E-Reader Features Considered Important 60 10. E-Readers 94 11. Interview Results 129

List of Figures
1. Types of Devices 50 2. E-Reading Purposes 52 3. Most Likely Functions for E-Readers 53 4. Media Preferred for Reading Fiction 57 5. Desirable E-Text Features 58 6. D tries using landscape layout 62 7. S holds the e-reader with his right hand and the stylus with his left 64 8. M lay down on her stomach and looked completely relaxed 65

viii

Chapter 1

Introduction
Problem Statement and Goal A dedicated e-reader is a small portable electronic appliance for reading. It allows users to read digital documents in similar situations and contexts as they would on paper. Several such readers are now commercially available, ranging in size from 4 x 7 inches to 10 x 12 (See Appendix A). These readers have annotation features, the option to highlight or underline text, a bookmarking feature, and a search facility. Many volumes can be downloaded directly into these devices. While some people now wonder about the advantages of dedicated reading devices compared to multi-functional notebook computers, others claim that the main advantage of dedicated reading devices is their simplicity (These views were expressed by a number of individuals in personal communication). E-readers are not only being used by the general public but also by specific groups of people for their own special purposes, and the available banks of digital texts are constantly growing. Among these specific groups, there are, for example, students, who can now avoid carrying heavy bags of textbooks; professionals, who require up-to-date reference material; and people with sight problems, who can now enlarge font size to make documents readable. Given the prediction that in the near future textbooks, reference books and manuals could be mainly digital (Davidson, Shields, & Biscos, 1997; Levy, 2000; Nunberg, 1993; Press, 2000), and the fact that e-readers are one of the emerging digital options, it is necessary to know whether these reading devices affect the reading process (Birkerts,

2 1994; Davidson et al., 1997; Levy, 2000) and how. Just as reading from a computer screen requires the use of new strategies (Kol & Schcolnik, 1997), reading in the smaller dedicated digital medium, e-readers, may require yet different strategies. It is important to discover what strategies are used and whether users feel comfortable using the new technology. New systems may support new strategies, but unless users are familiar with these strategies, they will not use them effectively (Mynatt, Leventhal, Instone, Farhat, & Rohlman, 1992). The goal of this research was to discover if the features of e-readers somehow influence the process of reading and in what way, and what strategies are employed when reading in this new medium. The population of this study was adult users of ereaders. Relevance and Significance Dedicated e-readers are cutting-edge technology, and therefore, not much research has been conducted or published in refereed journals to this date. However, there is an existing body of scholarly reports and papers presented at conferences that deal mainly with research for the purpose of device design, with market research (looking at desired features), or with the implications of the use of these devices for libraries and library users. Whenever a new medium is adopted, users try to adapt to it by changing the way they do things. Technophiles do so more enthusiastically and painlessly, and others usually follow, more reluctantly and with less ease. New technologies offer new possibilities, but at the same time they impose certain ways of doing things. Having

3 the skills to manipulate documents on one electronic system does not necessarily mean the user will have the skills for manipulating texts on another (Dillon, 1996). The present study can contribute to the field by exploring an old skill (reading) in a new medium (e-readers). If the new medium of e-readers becomes commonplace, it will be necessary to understand what new reading possibilities it offers and how these can be best exploited. The findings of this investigation can shed light upon the process of reading with dedicated electronic reading devices: what users do, what they choose to e-read, and how they do it. Barriers and Issues Dedicated e-readers are a new technology. The research done to date focuses mainly on design and development, market research, or library science. No studies focusing on the reading process with e-reading devices were found. The present study focuses on the process of reading with the new devices. It investigates individual readers habits and strategies as well as their preferences while reading with dedicated ereaders. It explores the effects of device characteristics on the way people read. It also attempts to characterize those texts that are more satisfactorily read on these devices. This goal has not been met before due to the newness of the technology. Research Questions Due to the exploratory nature of this research, no hypotheses were posed. The following research questions guided this investigation:

4 How do e-reader features influence the process of reading? What strategies are applied to reading in the new medium? Do the characteristics of the reading device help readers or bother them? Does the new medium lend itself more to certain types of reading (e.g., for information, for pleasure)? What kinds of texts do readers feel comfortable reading with digital devices? Do texts need special structural or formatting characteristics to be satisfactorily read with these devices? If so, what are they? Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions Limitations The following limitations to the investigation are noted: The investigator resides, works, and conducted her research in Israel. E-readers have not yet reached this part of the world, possibly because of the lack of Hebrew and Arabic system compatibility. As a result, it was decided to conduct a web survey that would allow the researcher to reach as many e-reader users as possible. This presented three problems: 1. It was impossible to know beforehand how many respondents would reply, and how many constitute the total population of e-reader users. Moreover, if the number of respondents was too small, that might have presented a problem of result validity.

5 2. Since random sampling is not possible with this research methodology, the respondents constituted a self-selected sample and thus may not be representative of all e-reader users. 3. The people participating in the case study were not real users, but rather volunteers confronted with the new technology for the first time. Delimitations The following delimitations to the investigation are noted: 1. Only owners of e-readers were encouraged to participate in the survey. That left out occasional onlookers as well as library patrons who borrow ereaders from their libraries. 2. This investigation focused on dedicated e-reading devices and did not deal with e-reader software for installation on desktop and laptop computers. Assumptions It was assumed that: 1. Respondents to the web questionnaire would have a sufficient knowledge of English to comprehend and answer the questions. 2. Respondents to the web questionnaire would have the necessary awareness of their likes, dislikes and practices to respond mindfully. Definition of Terms 1. Dedicated e-reader portable (handheld) electronic appliance for reading digital documents and books. These devices are designed to display text and

6 can store thousands of pages of text. They have rechargeable batteries. Also denominated e-book readers. 2. E-book - electronic book, term usually referring to digitized content corresponding to printed books (although not necessarily as long) including electronic text, illustrations, etc. The digitized content can be viewed on a desktop or notebook personal computer, on a PDA, or on a dedicated, portable e-reading device. The term is sometimes used to refer to e-readers, that is hardware used to read electronic texts. 3. Effective use In this study this is demonstrated by users reported perceptions rather than by the measurement of time on task. 4. Ludic reading The reading of fiction and near-fiction for pleasure by skilled readers (Nell, 1988). In ludic reading the process becomes so automatic that readers can immerse themselves in it for hours, often ignoring alternative activities (Hill, 2001b). 5. PDA Personal digital assistants are multiple use portable/handheld devices that offer many different functions, such as address book, calculator, and memo functions. They can now also be used to read electronic books and periodicals. 6. Readability 1. quality of being easily read, measured by means of reading comprehension and reading speed tasks (Mills & Weldon, 1987). Variables affecting readability include content and representation factors, such as concreteness, grammatical structure and complexity; layout and format factors, such as text density, white space and justification; and organizational

7 factors, such as headings and spatial cues (Grabinger & Osman-Jouchoux, 1996). Headings are labels, and labels help the reader read selectively (Gilreath, 1993). 2. quality of allowing comfortable reading, dependent on variables such as light, monitor resolution, contrast, character size, word spacing, letter spacing, and line length (Grabinger & Osman-Jouchoux, 1996). 7. Reading skills automatic information-processing techniques. Strategies can become skills and vice versa. A skill becomes a strategy when used intentionally (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). 8. Reading strategies comprehension-fostering activities; series of directed steps or text-attack techniques followed in order to comprehend a text (Feuerstein & Schcolnik, 1995). Deliberate and conscious actions meant to aid text comprehension (Paris et al., 1991). 9. Skimming making a rapid examination of a text in order to extract the main points from it; involves quickly looking over the whole text, selecting, and discarding information (Feuerstein & Schcolnik, 1995). 10. Text processing dynamic, ongoing interaction with the text (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Summary Chapter 1 has served to introduce the study, present the problem and goal, and explain the significance of the study, as well as the barriers and issues. In this chapter the research questions were posed and the limitations, delimitations and assumptions stated. The main terms used in this report were defined.

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

Introduction This review of the literature covers six areas related to the investigation of ereaders, to the issues focused on by this investigation, and to the survey methodology used. The first section reviews issues concerning reading (regardless of medium): text processing, reading strategies, text manipulation, and purposes of reading. The second reviews the research comparing reading on paper and reading on screen. This includes studies that focused on speed, as well as studies that looked at comprehension. It also summarizes main findings concerning variables that might affect screen reading. The third deals with changes in the way we read that result from the new digital media and content. It summarizes issues brought about by digital reading. It reviews some of the findings on hypertext and how it affects the way we read. It briefly touches upon the significance of digital literacy and raises the question if digital literacy is necessary when reading with dedicated e-readers. The fourth section deals with the introduction of digital books in libraries. The fifth deals with e-readers, the small, dedicated reading devices whose characteristics and use constitute the focus of this dissertation. It briefly surveys their historical development, summarizes research findings regarding desirable features, and discusses e-reader usability issues. The last section deals with web surveys, how they compare with e-mail

9 and mail surveys, and what is recommended to make them more usable, as well as how these recommendations were implemented in the development of the present web questionnaire. The review of the literature ends in a summary of the findings providing a basis for the present research. Section 1: What Reading Implies The process of reading has been the focus of research for many years. Reading can be studied from many different angles, among others, looking at the structure of discourse and characteristics of texts, at the text-attack strategies needed to comprehend texts, at the purposes of reading, at the role of the reader, and at the media utilized for reading. This investigation looked at the influence of a new medium, electronic readers, on reading and on text. It is therefore pertinent in this review to look at the relevant aspects of reading: text processing, reading strategies or comprehension-fostering activities, and purposes or functions of reading. Text Processing and Reading Strategies Comprehending a text implies processing it, carefully analyzing it for comprehension. Text processing assumes a multiplicity of processes occurring sometimes in parallel, sometimes sequentially (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). The process of text comprehension involves the reader in a complex, dynamic, ongoing interaction with the text (Goodman, 1967; Rumelhart, 1977, reprinted in 1994). Readers engage in several comprehension-fostering activities, one of which is the allocation of the reader's attention in order to concentrate on main points rather than minor details (Brown, Palincsar, & Armbruster, 1984, reprinted in 1994). According to

10 Manguel (1996), the reader has an extremely important role, being the one that reads the sense of the written text and thus lends it meaning. Thus, meaning totally depends on the interaction between the reader and the text (Rosenblatt, 1994). According to Leu and Reinking (1996), viewing reading as an interaction between reader and text is an idealized interpretation of the reading process, since an interaction implies two participants that actively engage one another, and in reality, while readers are active, traditional texts remain static. However, they point out that in electronic learning environments (i.e. hypertext, hypermedia or multimedia), the electronic medium is interactive, and therefore, the interactions between readers and texts become real. In order to process a text, readers apply a number of strategies. Strategic reading allows readers to elaborate, organize, and evaluate information from text. Strategic reading characterizes expert readers. But, reading strategies are difficult to define (Paris et al., 1991), for three reasons: First, it is difficult to differentiate reading strategies from other processes, such as study strategies. Second, it is hard to determine the scope of strategies. In the third place, some consider strategies intentional, whereas others do not. Paris et al. (1991) classify strategies into three groups: before reading, while reading, and after reading strategies. The main before reading strategy is previewing. For while reading, the authors discuss identifying main ideas, making inferences, and looking forward and backward in the text. The research reviewed in their paper shows that the identification of main ideas is influenced by text properties. Looking forward and backward in the text and using context to understand difficult information is what the authors call text inspection. The main strategy discussed in the after reading category

11 is summarizing. Concerning strategic knowledge in electronic learning environments, strategic knowledge has been uncontrolled in most experimental studies, assuming that all subjects are equally able to exercise the strategic knowledge necessary to use the software (Leu & Reinking, 1996). In a study focusing on screen reading strategies, Kol & Schcolnik (2000) found that training in the use of strategies could improve students screen reading. In a study conducted to investigate how a research prototype developed at Xerox (XLibris) provides a paper-like interface to support analytic reading activities, Marshall, Price, Golovchinsky, and Schilit (1999) found that people often skim and re-read, they look back to remember what they have just read, and pause deliberately. They also found that circumstances influenced the use of strategies. For example, in their study discussion leaders had a higher degree of engagement with the text and annotated more than discussion participants. Annotation is a commonly used strategy. In a study of annotations in a university context, Marshall (1997) found three ways of classifying annotations: in the text or in the margins, telegraphic or explicit, and removable (e.g., on sticky notes) or permanent. According to Marshall, annotations serve a variety of purposes, such as signals for future attention or records of interpretive activities. Marshall et al. (1999) found that the meaning of annotations is often vague and that users often forget their original intent in making them. They found that annotations on paper and in the XLibris device were similar in style and quality. However, this is not necessarily true of annotating in other reading devices, since XLibris was designed to work like a paper tablet.

12 Other commonly used strategies include consulting the index or table of contents, and bookmarking. In a usability study conducted at IBM to determine the effectiveness of softcopy documentation (Henke, 1998), the results showed that 49% of users used bookmarks, 75% used the Find function, 85% used the index, and 97% used the table of contents. The web survey on dedicated e-readers investigated what strategies are used and in what circumstances (See Appendix B, questions 14a-15b). Functions or Purposes of Reading Readers interact with texts purposively. They decide what it is they want out of the text and how they will tackle it, and during the task they check their progress and possibly revise their course (Dillon, 1996). There are many different reading purposes, and different reading conditions or circumstances necessitate different reading strategies (Marshall et al., 1999; Schilit, 1999). One classification of reading purposes (Goodman, 1994) distinguishes among five main types: environmental reading (e.g., street signs, directions, etc.), occupational reading (which is a major purpose for most people), informational reading (in which written texts act as an extension of human memory), recreational reading (to occupy leisure time), and ritualistic reading (to fulfill a religious or cultural rite).

In general, reading varies according to text genre, but within genres it also varies according to task or purpose. The same text (e.g., the Bible) is read differently for different purposes (e.g., as literature or as sacred text) (Levy, 1997), needs, and tasks (McKnight, 1996). A study examining college students knowledge about reading

13 conditions showed that students distinguish at least ten distinct reading categories or purposes: exam preparation; reading to research; class preparation; reading to learn; reading to apply; reading to self-inform; intellectually challenging reading; reading for stimulation; and light reading (Lorch, Lorch, & Klusewitz, 1993). This typology of reading conditions represents college readers. Studies of other groups of readers reveal different categories. For example, in a study of document activities in work contexts (Adler, Gujar, Harrison, O'Hara, & Sellen, 1998), the categories found included skimming, reading to identify, to remind, to answer questions, to self inform and learn, to cross-reference, to review text, to support listening, and to support discussion. On the other hand, a study to determine functions of reading among 10-13 year-old children across cultural settings identified three main functions of reading: utility, enjoyment, and escape (Greaney & Neuman, 1990). Dillon and McKnight (1990) investigated peoples perceptions of texts in terms of their use, content, and structure, and their results indicated that people read texts in terms of three criteria: why read them (e.g., for professional or personal reasons, to learn or not, out of interest or out of need), what type of information they contain (e.g., technical or non-technical, general or specific, textual or graphical), and how they are read (serially or non-serially, once or repeatedly, browsed or studied in depth). The present study looked at the different types of strategies used by readers when reading for different purposes: for information or for pleasure (See Appendix B, questions 14b and 15b). Davidson et al. (1997) predict that in the future people will prefer printed books when the purpose of reading is for pleasure. The results of the web questionnaire in the

14 present study do not confirm that prediction. The present study looked at the medium of e-readers and the types of reading for which it is perceived as more appropriate. The typologies resulting from previous research were used as a basis for the present research and incorporated both in the survey questionnaire (See Appendix B, questions 14a, 15a, and 22) and in the interview questions (See Appendix F). Section 2: Reading on Paper vs. Reading on Screen The issue of reading digital material is not new. A lot of research has been conducted concerning the readability of text from computer screens. Readability, in this sense, is measured by means of reading comprehension and reading speed tasks (Mills & Weldon, 1987). Most early studies comparing reading on paper and reading on computer screens focused on the time variable and showed that it took subjects longer to read from the screen than to read the same material from paper (Askwall, 1985; Muter, Latremouille, Treurniet, & Beam, 1982; Smith & Savory, 1989). In the 80s even experienced screen readers were found to read slower from the screen (Gould et al., 1987). However, according to Dillon (1992), the evidence for a speed deficit in reading from screens is less than conclusive. A number of variables, such as the size, type and quality of the screen, may have influenced the results. According to Muter (1996), there are many differences between book and computer reading that could explain the observed slower reading from computer screens of the 1980s. McKnight (1996) explains that in the early studies a typical screen was a low-resolution 24-line display with white or green text on a black background. He adds that nowadays, as screen quality becomes as good as that of paper, and typical displays are black characters on a white background, the human

15 eye is able to distinguish more rapidly between letters and words, and reading speed probably ceases to be an issue. Discussing interface design and reading on screen, Muter (1996) summarizes the main research findings concerning variables that might affect reading from screen. 1. Even though people often prefer color, color has many disadvantages for text presentation. 2. Positive polarity (dark characters on a light background) is better than negative polarity. 3. The higher the resolution ratio, the better reading performance is. 4. Increased spacing between lines and decreased spacing between letters improves the clarity and comfort of text. 5. Research suggests that reading speed decreases as the number of words per page decreases. For example, de Bruijn, de Mul, & van Oostendorp, 1992, found that learning times are shorter when larger screens are used and thus concluded that it is easier to study a text when a greater portion of it is accessible at the same time. 6. Large screens enhance the processing of text. 7. Multi-window displays help readers relocate information. 8. Paging is superior to scrolling in terms of performance and user preference. 9. Hyphenation at the end of lines slows down reading. 10. Reading is slower with uppercase characters. Some studies have looked at reading comprehension as well as speed. McKnight, Dillon, and Richardson (1990) found no significant differences between reading from

16 the screen and reading from paper. Muter and Maurutto (1991) found that both reading speed and comprehension were equivalent in the two media. In an early study of reading performance on a standardized test, subjects did better with the printed text than with the text displayed on a computer screen (Heppner, Anderson, Farstrup, & Weiderman, 1985). In a more recent study comparing reading and writing in both media it was found that writing on line offered clear advantages, whereas reading was far easier on paper (O'Hara & Sellen, 1997). However, after reviewing the body of research done comparing the two reading modes, Dillon (1992) concludes that comprehension does not seem to be negatively affected by presentation medium. In spite of the apparent difficulties of screen reading, training can help overcome some. In an experiment conducted with advanced readers of English as a Foreign Language, the findings showed that training in the use of facilitating strategies can improve students skimming from screen and make it as effective as skimming on paper (Kol & Schcolnik, 2000). Moreover, according to Landow (1996), when people compare reading on screen with reading books, they compare the screen to books that are ideal or utopian, not the kinds of paperbacks that most people read, with narrow margins, typographical errors and tiny type. Nell (1988) similarly mentions the fact that photocopies have an increasing role in todays work reading, giving rise to the problem of the nth-generation Xerox, in which each new set of copies is less legible than the preceding one. The focus of the present research is on e-readers. E-readers have much smaller screens than computers, but their resolution is high. In addition, they are portable and

17 similar in shape and size to traditional books. Among other things, this study looked at users perceived sense of efficiency or lack of efficiency when reading in the new medium (See Appendix B, question 20). Comfort or lack of comfort was observed (See Appendix B, question 20). The two problems of reading from PC displays that explain discomfort are inferior sharpness and resolution, and the fact that computer displays are stationary and thus readers cannot bring them to a comfortable position. Reading appliances are handheld, lightweight, and have high-resolution displays that allow effortless positioning because they are based on a paper metaphor (as opposed to a desktop metaphor) (Schilit, Price, Golovchinsky, Tanaka, & Marshall, 1999). Do readers prefer reading with dedicated devices than reading from their desktop computer screens? (See Appendix B, questions 16, 17 and 20) Interquest and a team of University of Virginia researchers (Davidson et al., 1997) conducted an extensive study on the influence of the new digital technologies on reading habits. They predicted that teaching and learning would move more and more towards digital modes and that electronic books would be used to replace textbooks, reference manuals, and professional publications. They also predicted that electronic books are likely to alter how people (especially students and professionals) read certain kinds of books. The present study attempted to look at what this alteration consists of and whether the characteristics of the e-reader help readers and facilitate their tasks (See Appendix B, question 20).

18 Section 3: Changes In The Way We Read Dealing with Digital Text A great deal has been written about the effect of digital reading on our mode of reading. Levy (1997) examines the relation of reading and human attention, and suggests that there is a general trend toward shallower, more fragmented, and less concentrated reading. Birkerts (1994) claims that we are shifting from vertical (deep) reading to horizontal reading and that skimming is becoming the common way of dealing with texts. He wonders whether students using hypermedia programs to study about literature will have the concentration needed to cope with the literature itself. Landow (1996), on the other hand, discusses many of the advantages of electronic text and explores the changes that new digital information technologies produce in the way we read and write. The defining characteristic of digital text is that it is capable of being processed, duplicated, and moved about. Digital text can be combined with multimedia elements, thus going much beyond the printed book. According to Gillingham (1996), the real value added to electronic texts must be structural signals for readers and prompting of strategy use. When special reading resources (e.g., definitions of low-frequency words) are added to the text, he claims comprehension can increase. Reading on a computer screen is a completely different type of activity from reading out of a book. Among the differences are: the speed of reading, the pauses we make, the length of concentration time, and the material we choose to skip or reread. These differences affect our understanding and retention (Burbules, 1998). In a comparison of reading on the web and reading from paper, McEneaney (2000) points out that readers of print rely on a wide range of skills, such as holding a book,

19 scanning from left to right, and using fonts, section headings and page layout to distinguish important information. Conventions for reading on the web have not emerged yet, and thus readers may face problems. Since most e-readers were designed to be as similar to print books as possible, chances are that the same conventions of printed text will apply. This, however, needs to be investigated. Two experiments were conducted to explore the importance of the visual component of the book metaphor for the production of more effective electronic books and to measure the usability of a textbook published on the WWW in which principles of scannability were applied (Landoni, Wilson, & Gibb, 2000). Based on the findings, a series of guidelines for the production of more effective electronic books were developed. Landoni, Wilson and Gibb conclude that presentation and appearance play a crucial role in allowing users to read and use text in electronic form, as well as they do text on paper. They stress that the production of good electronic books must take into account issues related to style and layout. The present study explored e-reader users feelings about digital text and its features (See Appendix B, question 19). Characteristics of Hypertext and the Way We Read It According to Reinking (1998), hypertext illustrates the potential uniqueness of electronic texts. Hypertext affects not only the way texts are written (Landow, 1996), but also the way in which we read or concentrate on what we read (Levy, 1997), and the literacies needed (Bolter, 1998; Gilster, 1997; Nielsen, 1995; Reinking, 1998; Thurstun, 2000). According to Bolter (1998), the main characteristics of hypertext are fluid text of unstable and unpredictable nature (influenced by the decisions of the reader),

20 multilinearity (rather than nonlinearity), a new, more egalitarian relationship among author, text and reader in which the authority of the text and its author is eroded, and the fact it affords associative (rather than hierarchical) possibilities. These characteristics necessarily affect the literacy needed, which becomes hypertextual literacy. Based on his development experience with hypertext, Landow (1996) mentions four qualities of hypertext: underlining relations and links, the introduction of other voices or points of view, the blending and mixing of genres and modes, and the transformation of texts into miniature electronic libraries. An essential characteristic of hypertext is the presence of links. In his discussion of rhetorics of the web, Burbules (1998) stresses the significance of links, the associations that links imply, and their rhetorical functions. According to Levy (1997), one of the salient features of our time is its busyness and fragmentation. In hypertext, for example, choosing among and reading fragments results in interrupted attention. It is not clear whether reading with dedicated devices solves or aggravates some of these problems. It seems reasonable to assume that the sense of disorientation that accompanies following hypertexts on the web disappears when reading in a more contained environment. Attention may be more focused in this type of environment. An item in the questionnaire tapped this issue (See Appendix B, question 20). Gilster (1997) points out that hypertext is not suited to all kinds of reading. In narrative, the flow or sequence is important. For research, on the other hand, hypertext is very useful.

21 New or Old Literacies? What kind of literacy is needed to read on e-readers? Is this literacy similar to digital literacy or is it closer to traditional reading literacy? E-readers are designed using the book metaphor rather than the computer metaphor, and familiar situations or media help people cope with new situations (Martindale, 1993). It would seem that the kind of literacy needed for reading on dedicated devices is closer to traditional reading literacy. E-readers are easy to use, and the user can quickly learn to page forward or backward and to use additional e-reader capabilities, such as a hyperlinked table of contents. If that is the case, perhaps digital literacy is not imperative for reading with dedicated devices. The relation between computer experience and attitude towards e-readers was explored (See Appendix B, questions 7 and 20). Section 4: Electronic Books and Libraries A considerable amount of research is being carried out concerning the use of electronic databases in libraries (Bishop, 1998; Bishop, 1999), the practices of users/readers in academic libraries (Summerfield, 1998), and the introduction of online books in libraries (Summerfield & Kantor, 1996; Summerfield & Mandel, 1999). Electronic books and electronic readers are emerging as a new format, and several investigators are looking into ways of utilizing them in libraries (Barnard, 1999; Gibbs, 1999-2000) and others, such as Susan Gibbons at the Electronic Book Evaluation Project, in Rochester, New York (http://www.rrlc.org/ebook/ebookhome.html), are evaluating their uses and feasibility in various types of libraries. Barnard (1999) points out several problems, namely the limited materials offered by vendors, the lack of standard formats among products and vendors, and the high

22 price. However, if proprietary limitations are reduced, then e-readers may offer several advantages, such as relieving students from bulky, poorly printed and expensive course materials. Gibbs (1999-2000) reports on the North Carolina State University Libraries' first experimentation with electronic reading devices. They bought seven Rocket eBooks and five SoftBooks, as well as a number of titles to load onto these reading devices. They also signed up as subscribers for netLibrary so patrons could read titles on a computer (their own, the libraries' or a laptop lent by the libraries). Their survey showed that users enjoyed using the devices, although each device had its own set of likes and dislikes: The Rocket eBook size was appropriate for reading fiction, while for more serious reading users preferred the SoftBook. Users liked the possibility of reading in dark environments and the advantage of increasing font size. They also liked the ability to look up words in a dictionary on the device. Gibbs predicts that this technology is here to stay, although formats will probably undergo transformations. According to the information provided in the website of Triconference 2000: Can e-books improve libraries? (http://skyways.lib.ks.us/central/ebooks/libraries.html), libraries in a number of countries have started using e-books. For example, in Australia several Rocket eBooks have been distributed among libraries. Another library is using a SoftBook to demonstrate the technology to the public and staff. In Canada, one public library circulates twelve SoftBooks with the same titles. Other libraries circulate Rocket eBooks. In Denmark three libraries have started circulating Rocket eBooks. In Norway, three small public libraries are circulating Rocket eBooks and SoftBooks. In the United States, libraries in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New York,

23 North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are distributing e-books. Even though library use of e-readers is not within the scope of this investigation, the findings of this study may prove of interest to librarians, since the success of ereaders in libraries will be affected, among other factors, by users practices, preferences and difficulties. Section 5: Dedicated Reading Devices Historical Development The vision of a small portable electronic book to replace paper books dates back to Kays vision of a dynabook (Nielsen, 1995). In 1991 Sony introduced in the US the Electronic Book Player, a palm-held device, weighing less than two pounds, that displays the contents of an 8-centimeter CD-ROM disc having a capacity of 100,000 pages of printed text. Reference works, such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, were the first popular electronic books. The Sony device was the first of its kind and not easy to use, but it allowed users to search for information in several ways: for a topic by word, for broad topics listed in a menu, for an article by the keywords in a title, or by using hypertext links (Kilgour, 1998). Some people (view expressed informally by a number of members of the eBook List) claim that the development of dedicated e-readers is unnecessary, since the new PDAs have improved considerably and offer excellent readability. Moreover, when using PDAs users can perform additional functions besides reading (Ledford, 1999). According to Gibbons (2000), there are two e-book camps. The first, including Microsoft, Adobe and other e-book software manufacturers, believes that consumers do

24 not want to purchase a single-purpose, e-book reading device for several hundred dollars, but would rather purchase a multi-purpose device that also includes e-book reading software, such as a PDA, Pocket PC or laptop computer. The e-book software developed by these companies can be run on various multi-purpose devices. The second camp argues that although consumers may prefer multi-purpose devices, publishers want dedicated e-book readers because encryption software can always be decrypted by hackers, whereas the decryption of e-book copyright protection can be prevented if the e-books only reside on dedicated e-book devices. Interface Design and Desirable Features Research indicates that people reading from larger screens read faster than those reading from smaller screens (de Bruijn, D., de Mul, & van Oostendorp, 1992; Muter, 1996; Reisel & Shneiderman, 1987; Shneiderman, 1987). However, as mentioned above, screen resolution has improved, and so has reading from small screens. In the present study, among other issues, readers attitudes concerning screen size, legibility and ease of use were tapped. What features should electronic readers have? According to Kilgour (1998), to be acceptable, electronic reading devices should possess at least six characteristics: better legibility than that of print books; a display that accommodates at least 500 words; size and weight comparable or smaller than those of an average novel; possibility of holding, manipulating and reading it with one hand; lower cost than the price of a novel; and the ability to access text in databases anywhere. In a paper dealing with digital annotation, Marshall (1998) says annotation is a key function for electronic reading devices. In market research conducted at Kent State

25 University to find out what features students would want to have in electronic books, they found that students would like these books to be easily navigable, searchable, and to allow highlighting of items (Wearden, 1998a). Barnard (1999) claims that the ideal reading device should be compact, have high readability (in the sense of legibility), be capable of reading different types of software, and easily interface with digital databases. According to Fidler (1998), to compete successfully with paper media, display devices need to possess the following qualities of print media: portability (feature related to weight and size), simplicity, readability (referring to contrast and sharpness), durability, longevity (refers to avoidance of obsolescence of systems), a portrait-oriented format, standardization (including compatibility and exchangeability), affordability, reliability (possibly eliminating the need for batteries), and personalization (refers to the ability to highlight items, add notes, and bookmark pages). The survey conducted at the North Carolina State University Libraries showed that users particularly like the backlight and the possibility of increasing font size (Gibbs, 19992000). Marshall et al. (1999) recommend that designers of digital reading devices focus on readability, document layout, and physical comfort. In an online survey conducted to learn about the features responsible for the Rocket eBooks popularity, they found that the most important features are its readability, its portability, and its ease of use (Roush & Schaul, 2000). A report dealing with many technical topics related to reading, publishing, and using paper documents prepared by researchers from the University of Virginias School of Engineering and Applied Science and INTERQUEST (Davidson et al., 1997) was read and discussed by participants in three focus group (participants were divided into

26 three groups by age: 20-30, 30-40 and 40 and above) sessions held in Charlottesville, Virginia, during the second week of March 1997. All participants owned computers and most used computers regularly. Responding to the high level of interest of the participants in the idea of a dedicated reader, the investigators arranged a presentation of two EB prototypes. Participants reacted positively to the technology and expressed an interest in trying it out, but they said that the e-reader should be light and durable. They found the following features advantageous: verticality (portrait layout), portability, ability to close it, note-taking option, light weight, storage advantages, format of a traditional book, and the possibility of seeing two pages at once.

Two studies were conducted in 1997 and 1998 (Wearden, 1998b) to see what screen orientation users would prefer for reading periodicals and books. The results showed a strong bias in favor of portrait orientation regardless of education, gender, race and age. However, those who spend more time watching television and using online services tend to like landscape orientation. Since several of the available e-readers allow choice of orientation, a question in the web questionnaire tapped users preferences (See Appendix B, question 18).

27 When reading on paper, people make use of the spatial arrangement of the text as a clue to its structure. They can easily get a feel for the size, structure, and content of the text (Severinson Eklundh, Fatton, & Romberger, 1996). An interesting question to investigate is whether this is at all possible when using a page-at-a-time digital display. At a local level, the clues help readers locate information on the page. This may also be influenced by the navigation mode available: scrolling or paging. Two studies assessed the effects of two types of text presentation -- page-by-page vs. scrolling -- on participants performance while reading and revising texts (Piolat, Roussey, & Thunin, 1997). In both studies the page-by-page presentation facilitated the task. This is consistent with the findings reported by Muter (1996), that paging is superior to scrolling in terms of performance and user preference. In an e-book dealing with the Rocket eBook ergonomics, McCusker (1998) discusses the Rocket developers decisions concerning paging. In order to facilitate page turning, they added two buttons right under the thumb. This way, users would be able to turn the page without having to take their eyes off the screen. She explains that paging was chosen over scrolling to help users keep their place on the page. They also investigated how to preserve the feeling of physically turning a page, and found that simply 'repainting' a page from top to bottom would do it. By the time the user moves his/her eyes from the last word of the previous page to the first word of the new page, the new page has already been repainted, and the continuity is not lost. Since at least some of the available e-readers allow users to both page and scroll, and considering that paging is a simpler action only requiring clicking a forward button, a question regarding preferred mode was included in the web questionnaire (See Appendix B, question 18).

28 In a pilot study conducted by the Japanese e-book Consortium (JEC) from Nov. 1, 1999 to Feb. 19, 2000 to evaluate the acceptance of e-books in Japan, besides using kiosks situated in train stations and stores for distribution, they distributed free e-readers to 500 people. Participants had to buy at least one e-book title and then fill out three surveys delivered via mail or email. The results showed that participants felt the font size was too small, and they were frustrated because they could not change text size. They resented the inability to search, and complained about the long time it took to open a title. The file size was too large, particularly for titles with many images, and it was not possible to convert the files to other formats. They also said battery life was too short. The investigators concluded that perhaps the design would have to be changed (Pilot study reported in Sanders & Sanders, 2000). In the present research, the survey questionnaire includes questions concerning e-reader features (See Appendix B, question 21) and the relation between features and the type of device used was analyzed. E-Reader Usability At the Software Usability Research Laboratory of the Wichita State University (Selvidge & Phillips, 2000), a small-scale study was conducted to explore whether differences exist in comprehension and reading speed when reading on an electronic reader or paper. They administered the Nelson-Denny Reading Comprehension Tests in two modes to sixteen participants, on a Rocket eBook from NuvoMedia and on paper. The presentation mode was varied within-subjects, with one test presented on the e-book and the other test on paper. The font size (10 pt.), font style (Times New Roman), and amount of information per page were identical for both paper and e-book. The dependent variables included reading speed, a reading comprehension score, task

29 difficulty and preference measures. For both reading speed and reading comprehension, no differences between the two media were found. In addition, users rated the reading task difficulty about the same for both the paper and the e-book versions. When examining preference, nine of sixteen users preferred reading from paper to reading from the e-book. Users said that they preferred paper because they were familiar with it. Others said the paper caused less eyestrain and had less glare. Users also stated that they felt more in control with paper. The users who preferred the e-book liked the page up/down buttons, felt the e-book was easier to manipulate than shuffling sheets of paper, and liked that they could read with the device in low light levels. The main complaints about the device were that it weighed too much and caused eye strain. The improvements suggested to increase the usability of the e-readers were: decreasing the weight of the device, increasing screen resolution, adding page numbers, improving the scrolling feature, offering screen display with variable levels of contrast, and incorporating more functionality, such as a personal organizer and Internet access. Stork (2001) mentions four advances to e-reader usability that have been made: The capability of having hypertext cross-reference links both within the book and to the Internet (true for most e-readers); the improvement of screen size in many platforms; and the addition of full text search in many e-book formats. He says that the inclusion of fuzzy logic search technology should improve usability even more. Digital Text Usability Dillon (1996) proposes the TIMS (Task model, Information model, Manipulation skills and facilities, and Standard reading processor) framework for reading. All four components are interrelated and reflect cognitive, perceptual and psychomotor aspects

30 of reading. According to Dillon, the reading task in TIMS is the primary element for understanding text use. The information model is a representation of document structure that helps readers identify likely locations for information in the text, predict the content, etc. The information model gives a meaningful structure to the text contents and provides context. As readers read, the model becomes a map. Even though this aspect of reading is not within the scope of the present investigation, future research may test whether the information model can be activated while reading with dedicated e-readers. Manipulation skills are particularly important when reading documents that are more than one screen in length. When dealing with digital text, many more manipulations (than when reading on paper) are available: paging or scrolling, hypertextual navigation, searching, etc. Based on their findings, Landoni et al. (2000) suggest guidelines to improve digital text usability: The page metaphor should be respected. Tables of Contents and Index(es) are essential and cannot be simply replaced by search facilities. Titles, pagination, and typographical aspects have to be designed carefully to enhance text readability and scannability. Visual cues have to be adapted to exploit the potential of the medium where the book is published. In addition to the characteristics of the device and the degree of utilization, the present study also investigated characteristics of text structure and format that make texts suitable for the new technology (See Appendix B, question 19).

31 Section 6: Web Surveys E-mail survey questionnaires are difficult to complete and may be the cause of errors, omitted items, and too wide a variability in responses. The web survey seems to offer several advantages over other methods: First, recipients of the cover letter (See Appendix C) can easily click the linked URL and respond to the questions, or can simply ignore or remove the e-mail message, thus effectively avoiding the feeling of privacy invasion. Another advantage has to do with the possibility of making certain changes in the questionnaire even after data collection has begun. This is not the case in mail questionnaires. Fowler (1988) points out that once questionnaires are printed and data collection has begun, changes are expensive and difficult to make. Yet another advantage of web questionnaires is that they can be made to be very esthetic and userfriendly. Yun and Trumbo (2000) analyzed the characteristics of three survey modes (post, e-mail and Web). The authors bring up some of the methodological issues in electronic survey research cost (the web survey is more expensive than the mail version); representativeness, and response rate (some fear that the web is biased toward young males of above-average socio-economic and educational status, but concerning survey response rates, electronic methods seem to offer advantages, and web surveys offer the additional advantage of being anonymous, which e-mail is not); response speed and geographical advantage (electronic surveys provide a faster reaction time than mail surveys); ethical concerns (specifically the problem of unsolicited e-mail); and technical problems (researchers must be careful in dealing with different browsers, platforms and monitors). They point out that web surveys offer several advantages: automatic question

32 filtering (where the program can skip irrelevant questions), color and interactive images, strictness in allowing answers, dynamic updating of statistical results, and the possibility of providing the website URL in the advance mailing. The results indicated a significant relationship between electronic survey response mode and high use of electronic communication technology, which in the case of the present research does not constitute a problem, since some technological know-how can be safely assumed among e-reader users. Yun and Trumbo (2000) believe that it is only a matter of time before the web survey becomes the major survey method. Usability of Web Questionnaires At the U. S. Census Bureau, some experimental user interfaces for data collection and data dissemination have been through at least one cycle of usability testing (Murphy et al., 1999). The following summarizes the conclusions and recommendations made by the authors as well as the solutions that were implemented in preparing the e-book survey questionnaire for the present research: 1. Lengthy explanations and instructions should be avoided because web users want to move around quickly. In the present questionnaire instructions were kept as short and simple as possible (See Appendix B). 2. Users should be permitted to navigate by whichever means they prefer, tabbing or scrolling or a combination of both. This feature was incorporated in the present questionnaire. 3. Survey respondents include experts and novices. Although the behavior of checkboxes and radio buttons may be clear to some respondents, others may not be aware of the distinction between the two. To solve this

33 problem, a remark Check ALL that apply was included in the question instructions for items with checkboxes, and a remark Choose ONE for each was included for items with radio buttons. 4. Many users have a loosely defined, pre-existing mental model based on previous experience and expect to be able to complete their tasks without reading instructions. The present questionnaire was formatted so as to conform to standard web questionnaire interfaces. Yun and Trumbo (2000) conclude that moving from paper-based to electronic media poses serious issues, both for survey methodologists and for user-interface designers, but usability of web questionnaires can be improved by paying attention to users limitations and expectations. Summary This chapter reviewed the literature dealing with reading in general and research conducted on reading in the two media: computer screens and paper. It outlined the relevance of past research for the present study. Although it was not an aim of the present study to measure reading speed or comprehension, the study looks at users perceived sense of efficiency and describes the strategies applied when reading different kinds of texts. The chapter also reviewed the changes in the way people read that derive from characteristics of digital texts and of the digital medium. It summarized some of the literature dealing with the introduction of e-readers in libraries, and dealt with ereader and web questionnaire usability issues.

34 The process of text comprehension involves the reader in a dynamic interaction with the text. Readers employ strategies to comprehend the text and thus lend it meaning, but different reading conditions, purposes or circumstances necessitate different reading strategies. The research conducted to date throws light on the reading strategies when reading on paper (Paris et al., 1991), on computers (Henke, 1998), or on the XLibris prototype, which is more like a writing tablet (Marshall, 1997; Marshall et al., 1999). It was not known as of this investigation what strategies are used when reading on other dedicated readers, which is what this research investigated. The research conducted to clarify functions or purposes of reading either looked at college students (Lorch et al., 1993), at the specific activities of a work context (Adler et al., 1998), or at reading among children (Greaney & Neuman, 1990). The present research, on the other hand, looked at a general population of e-reader users. Research comparing reading on paper and reading on screen has shown that it takes subjects longer to read from the screen. However, newer and higher resolution screens may very well yield different results. Comprehension does not seem to be negatively affected by screen presentation, and training can help people deal with the new medium. However, based on the literature comparing digital texts with paper texts, it seems digital texts are different in nature, making a comparison of media less relevant. Even though the literature comparing performance in different media provides interesting background issues, this study did not compare comprehension in the two media. From the research reviewed, it becomes obvious that there are certain problems associated with reading on screen. However, since the resolution of dedicated e-readers

35 is quite good and quickly improving (See Appendix A), and the findings and conclusions reached about reading from a computer screen cannot be assumed to apply to dedicated e-readers, this research looked at users perceptions and opinions regarding the experience of reading with e-readers. Regarding the experience of dealing with digital text, conclusions reached about the web, and about the effects of hypertext, such as shallower reading and the fragmentation of attention, may not be applicable when using e-readers. Even though the present research did not specifically look at issues of attention, some general trends may be inferred from the findings. It was not clear whether texts on e-readers are mainly read as hypertext or as linear texts. Observations helped clarify preferred patterns and the interviews helped clarify subjects reasons for their preferences. The present study utilized existing typologies of strategies and conditions/purposes as a basis for preparation of the questionnaire and interview questions. Observations and predictions that digital reading will alter the way we read were a starting point for the present research, which focused on that issue. Are skimming, hypertextual navigation, and fragmentation as relevant to e-readers as they are to reading on the Web? It is proposed that digital literacy may be less essential in reading with e-readers than it is in Web reading. A considerable amount of research has already been done regarding desirable ereader features (Barnard, 1999; Davidson et al., 1997; Fidler, 1998; Gibbs, 1999-2000; Kilgour, 1998; Marshall, 1998; Marshall et al., 1999; Roush & Schaul, 2000; Sanders & Sanders, 2000; Wearden, 1998a). It seems that characteristics perceived as important are

36 ease of navigation, searchability, the option to highlight or mark text, the backlight, the option to increase font size, readability, and portability. These features and others were incorporated in the questionnaire and into the observation protocols and interviews. The strategy of text inspection (Paris et al., 1991) is particularly relevant to the present study. Text inspection refers to backtracking or skipping ahead and using context to understand difficult information. Is this disturbed when e-reading? Perhaps, if users utilize the feature of bookmarks, this process needn't be disturbed. However, it is possible that users find the use of context and backtracking difficult or even impossible with e-readers. Several items in the survey questionnaire dealt with this issue (See Appendix B, question 20). The field of digital reading in general is a relatively new field, and the topic of reading with dedicated devices is particularly new. The findings of this study can contribute some knowledge to this new field and can pave the way for future research.

37

Chapter 3

Methodology
Introduction The goal of this study was to discover if dedicated electronic reading devices (ereaders) offer new possibilities to users and what strategies are needed for effective use of this new medium. The research looked at users preferences as well as their perceived sense of efficiency and described the strategies applied when reading different types of texts (e.g., stories, manuals, articles). The research consisted of two parts: a web survey and a case study, in which five volunteers were observed as they e-read and then interviewed. The survey questionnaire focused on the strategies used when reading with e-readers, specific features of e-readers found helpful or disturbing, and the reading purposes that users find suitable for this medium. The observations and interviews focused on the same aspects but were not limited to them. The purpose of the ethnographic part of the research was to collect as much information as possible about the process of reading with dedicated e-readers. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design, the procedures that were followed, the subjects of the study, the instruments that were developed for data collection, and the methods for data analysis. Research Methods One part of the research consisted of a case study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Tellis, 1997) with a small number of subjects and used ethnographic techniques namely

38 observations (Fetterman, 1998) (See Observation Protocol in Appendix E), with thinkaloud and interviews (See Appendix F). Subjects were first shown how to use the ereader and were given a choice of three kinds of materials to read during the session: a narrative (Stephen Kings novella, Riding the Bullet), an expository article dealing with the history of computers, and a digital magazine dealing with developments in e-books. After the observation the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000) to see how the subjects felt about the reading experience and whether they would adopt the new medium for reading. A semi-structured interview is an oral administration of a questionnaire, and the data obtained can serve comparative purposes (Fetterman, 1998; Fraenkel and Wallen, 2000). The interview agenda targeted aspects of the reading session that could shed light on the uniqueness of the process of reading with e-readers. In addition, questions similar to those in the web questionnaire were included for comparative purposes (See Appendix F). Even though the aim of this research was not to assess the usability of a specific e-reader interface, the methodology used in a way resembled the use of ethnographic observations by user-interface designers. Unlike traditional ethnographic observation, in which researchers immerse themselves in cultures for weeks or months, the process was limited to a short period (Shneiderman, 1998). This part of the research focused on how users interact with the digital texts in the e-reader, what strategies they use, and whether they seem pleased or upset by the features of the reader. The data collected from the various users and the data collected in the survey questionnaire were triangulated (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000) where possible. The purpose of this part of the study was both exploratory (to discover or identify characteristics of the reading process with e-readers) and descriptive (to

39 document the behaviors, attitudes, etc. that occur as subjects e-read) (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Tellis, 1997). Another part of the study consisted of a survey (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). The questionnaire was placed on the web (http://www.scis.nova.edu/~scholnik/EreaderQuestionnaire.html), and announced in the eBook List. To get as high a response rate as possible, the cover letter motivated list members to respond by explaining the importance of the findings to their field of interest. After permission was requested from the list administrator to post the announcement (See Appendix G), a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study, offering to share the results of the research, and assuring confidentiality and anonymity was sent to the list (See Appendix C). The cover letter included a link to the questionnaire for respondents to answer on line. In addition, requests were sent to the editors of the eBookNet site and the Librarians eBook Newsletter (See Appendix H) to post the announcement. Additional announcements appeared in EPIC (Electronically Published Internet Connection), in the Digital Worm (See Appendix H), in the eBookNet Weekly News (See Appendix H), in Papyrus News (See Appendix H), and in the eBook Broadcast Bulletin (See Appendix H). As mentioned in the Limitations section, this methodology poses a threat: since random sampling is not possible, the respondents constitute a self-selected sample, and may not be representative of all e-reader users. To attempt to solve this issue, the observations of the case study were used to triangulate, confirm and expand the findings of the survey.

40 Specific Procedures 1. The Survey This was an exploratory descriptive study. It used a cross-sectional survey i.e. a survey in which the information is collected at just one point in time (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000) to find out e-reader users e-reading patterns and preferences. Demographic data on the respondents were collected, including age, gender, occupation, native language, and education (See Appendix B, questions 1-7). Possible relationships among the demographic variables and reported e-reading habits, strategies and preferences were explored. The survey questionnaire was placed on the Internet for a limited period of time (1 month). Resource Requirements The respondents needed to be regular e-reader users for responding to the questionnaire. This pre-requisite was clearly stated in the cover letter. The e-reader used was any one of the currently available commercially (See Appendix A). The e-readers owned by users varied. Since differences in device characteristics may explain differences in responses, respondents were asked to state which reader they own (See Appendix B, question 8). Subjects The target population of this study consisted of adult users of e-readers. Random sample selection was not possible in this situation, since only users willing to take the time and respond to the questionnaire did so. This may have introduced a bias and limited the samples representativeness and thus the generalizability of the findings. In

41 spite of this limitation, the results helped identify the strategies used when reading in the e-reader medium and provided useful information about preferred uses, types of texts, and e-reader features. The findings can serve as a basis for future experimental research. Instrumentation Since no research with this focus had been conducted regarding e-readers before, an instrument was custom developed for this study, tapping e-reading habits, characteristics, strategies, and preferences (See Appendix B). The questionnaire is made up of closed-ended questions mainly, but where relevant, it allows for additions and comments. The introductory section is devoted to demographic data and particulars about the kind of e-reader used. In developing the questionnaire, care was taken to avoid excessive length that could discourage respondents from completing it. However, the questionnaire was still somewhat long, due to the number of issues in the investigation. The questionnaire was placed on line to increase usability and ensure an esthetic layout and automatic data collection. The instrument was pre-tested with a small sample of users to reveal ambiguities or other problems. Suggestions were incorporated and ambiguities solved. Validity The questionnaire was given to a panel of judges for content validation. The panel was made up of experts in reading and technology: a reading comprehension teacher with 20 years of teaching experience who has done research comparing reading on paper and on screen, a teacher trainer who has published extensively on the subject of reading comprehension skills and strategies, an experienced instructional materials developer who has produced reading comprehension software, a software engineer, an educational psychologist, and a technology applications teacher. The judges were

42 provided with a statement of the purpose of the study and a description of the subjects, as well as the aims of the study (variables the questionnaire was meant to tap). They were asked to judge both content and format of the questions. The questionnaire was revised according to the judges suggestions and resubmitted for final evaluation. The judges confirmed that the questionnaire tapped the information needed to answer the research questions (i.e. face validity) and used appropriate language that is free of ambiguity. Reliability A factor analysis was performed so as to determine if various variables could be grouped into factors (e.g., reading strategies). Reliability of specific scales in the questionnaire was checked by calculating the Cronbach alpha coefficient. In question 14b (See Appendix B) dealing with reading for information, the strategies of annotating, underlining, and consulting previously marked sections were revealed as one factor (the connection of reading and writing), with an alpha reliability coefficient of .79. The same three items are revealed as strongly related also in question 15b, reading for pleasure, the alpha reliability coefficient of the index being .84. The strategies of using hyperlinks, references, and the table of contents to get to specific sections are related in reading for information (alpha = .75) but not so in reading for pleasure (items 13, 14 and 15 in question 15b). Question 20 (See Appendix B) included 14 items representing two indices or scales. The first index tapped favorability towards e-readers and included items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14. The negative items were recoded as positive and the fifth option (no opinion) was eliminated so as to calculate scale reliability. This index has a .85 alpha reliability coefficient. The second index tapped users opinions on their specific e-

43 readers physical characteristics (comfort for holding, resolution, weight and legibility) and included items 4, 5, 6, and 12 (See Appendix B). This index has a .74 reliability coefficient. A factor analysis of the items in question 22 (excluding item 1, prayer, and item 9, listening aid, which stood out as seldom chosen functions) was performed. One factor yielded an alpha reliability coefficient of .87, thus indicating unidimensionality. That is, users seem to perceive all functions or purposes as one factor. Internal Validity - Of the four main threats to internal validity in survey research, mortality, location, instrumentation, and instrument decay (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000), the only one that may have constituted a threat to this study was location. The researcher only knew that the respondents were responding on line (either from their work place or from home), but location varied from subject to subject. There was no control over the characteristics of the room, lighting conditions, or comfort level. One can only assume that respondents chose to be in a comfortable position in order to respond to the questionnaire. Formats for Result Presentation The data were analyzed to identify respondents e-reading strategies for the different reading purposes, preferred text types, perceived sense of efficiency when using ereaders, and e-reader features found helpful or disturbing. Descriptive statistics were analyzed (means and standard deviations are reported for items with rating scales). The ratings for the ranked items were correlated with demographic data (Spearman rho correlation) to check for possible relationships. The data are presented through frequency tables, bar charts and pie charts.

44 2. The Case Study The case study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Tellis, 1997) allowed the researcher to observe people as they use e-books. Qualitative research was particularly suitable to this study because the researcher wanted to observe the process of reading and how people interact with dedicated reading devices. The purpose of the study was exploratory to investigate the use of a new medium for reading, and descriptive to document what readers do when reading with e-books and how they feel about the process. The observations were not limited to the issues investigated in the survey part of the research, but as much information as possible was collected about the process observed. The observations included think-aloud. A good way of gathering information about use of a system is to observe users interacting with it. To get more insight into their decisions, users are asked to think aloud as they work, and describe what they are doing and why (Dix, Finlay, Abowd, & Beale, 1998; Lewis & Rieman, 1993, 1994). Even though he points out that the technique has been criticized for interfering with normal text processing (i.e. cognitive intrusion), McKnight (1996) mentions some of the advantages of verbal protocols of people interacting with texts, in which people are asked to think aloud. No elaborate equipment is needed; it is cheap, relatively naturalistic and physically nonintrusive (as opposed to measures of eye movements). Also, subjects do not need to remain immobile. As in most qualitative research, the sample for the case study was a purposive sample (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). Five volunteers were shown how to use e-readers, and special observation sessions were scheduled. These were followed by in-depth semistructured interviews. The participants were given full information about what was

45 going to be observed and about the purpose of the study. Content analysis was used to analyze the information collected. The observation of a few individuals reading ways, matched with the findings of the survey, provided interesting insights into the reading process in the new medium. Observer Bias A second observer was used whenever possible so that the two observers observations could be cross-referenced for reliability. Resource Requirements The Rocket eBook device available was pre-loaded with the necessary content for the observations. Subjects The five volunteers that participated in the case study ranged in ages from 23 to 60. One is a native speaker of English, one a native speaker of Spanish, and three are Hebrew speakers. All volunteers have excellent command of English and normally use computers in their work. For all of them this was the first time they read from an ereader (Rocket eBook ). Their occupations are varied (See Appendix I). Instrumentation An observation protocol (See Appendix E) and interview questions (See Appendix F) were prepared in advance. Administration The observations took place in the researchers living room, and subjects could choose where and how to sit or lie down. They all chose to sit in a comfortable sofa; one of them chose to lie down on her stomach. The demonstration of e-reader features took

46 about five minutes. The reading sessions lasted around 50 minutes and were immediately followed by the interviews. Formats for Result Presentation During the observations and interviews, protocols were used to record as much information as possible, and informal field notes (Fetterman, 1998) were taken as well. A data analysis of the observation protocols and field notes was performed. The results are presented in descriptive narrative, and any findings that lend themselves to table format are presented that way. Summary This chapter outlined the design of the study, the research methodologies selected, the specific procedures, subjects, instruments and methods used for data analysis. It explained the reason for the adoption of two different methodologies, a web survey on the one hand, and ethnographic observations of five subjects as they e-read followed by interviews on the other hand. The purpose of this double methodology was to obtain as much information as possible about the process of e-reading and to cross-reference and compare numerical data with qualitative data.

47

Chapter 4

Results
Introduction This chapter reports on the findings of the two parts of the research, the web survey and the case study. For each of the two parts it includes a brief description of the methodology used and the specific findings. The Survey The survey questionnaire was placed on the Internet (http://www.scis.nova.edu/~scholnik/EreaderQuestionnaire.html) for a period of one month and was announced in the e-Book List, in the Librarians eBook Newsletter, in EPIC (Electronically Published Internet Connection), in the Digital Worm, in the eBookNet Weekly News, in Papyrus News, and in the eBook Broadcast Bulletin. More than 100 respondents participated in the survey. However, it is not possible to estimate what percentage of the population of e-reader users (including users of dedicated ereaders, PDAs and Pocket PCs) they represent, nor is it possible to know how the respondents differ from the population of e-reader users as a whole. Therefore, the findings of this investigation cannot be claimed to represent the trends among users of ereaders. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that the demographic profile of the respondents is similar to that of e-reader users, at least regarding education and frequency of computer use (See Characteristics of Survey Respondents section below).

48 Data Analysis Data Collection The responses were submitted and received as anonymous text files by e-mail. A routine was programmed to transfer the individual responses to a single database file so as to ensure accuracy of data by minimizing manipulation and thus possible recording errors. Therefore, there was no need to enter the data manually. In order to prepare the database file for analysis, the responses to open questions (e.g., other languages) were coded and nominal data subsequently replaced with numerical codes. Analysis Descriptive statistics were analyzed and frequencies of all variables computed. Demographic variables, such as age, gender and education, were checked for possible relations with various individual variables and with indices found in the factor analysis. Where relevant, t-tests for independent samples and ANOVA were run to compare groups. The data are presented through frequency tables, bar charts and pie charts. Findings Characteristics of Survey Respondents One hundred and five subjects participated in the survey, but two cases were eliminated because they did not fulfill the prerequisite of being e-reader users. The survey respondents had the following characteristics: Ages ranged from 16 to 73 and the mean age was 44.2. Sixty percent of the respondents were women, and 33% were men (7% of the subjects did not indicate gender). Yun and Trumbo (2000) quote 1997 research by Schmidt that points out that the population of Web users is biased toward

49 young males of above-average socio-economic and educational status. However, they say that according to recent Internet demographics the female population of the Web has increased from 30% in 1995 to 46% in 1999. According to a MediaMetrix report (MediaMetrix, 2000), 45-64-year olds are the fastest growing Internet population. The characteristics of the present survey respondents reflect these trends and suggest a better representativeness of the online survey. Eighty five percent of the respondents had a higher education degree (BA, MA or PhD), while the rest had an Associate Degree or were high school graduates, thus indicating a bias toward higher educational status. The respondents included individuals in a range of occupations, including computer-related work (26 %), librarians (13.4%), writers (10.3%), business people (10.3%), educators (9.3%), publishers (7.2%), as well as social workers, lawyers, editors, students, retired and others. The majority of the occupations belong to group 2 of the international classification of professions, CITP-88 (http://www.ilo.org/public/french/bureau/stat/class/isco.htm), that is Intellectual and Scientific Professions. Eighty nine percent of the respondents were native speakers of English, and the rest were divided almost equally among Spanish, Norwegian, Portuguese, Dutch, Hebrew, Japanese, Danish and Swedish. Many people e-read in more than one language, where besides English, people e-read in Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Hindi, Indonesian, Tagalog, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Dutch. Eighty three percent of the respondents reported using their computer 7 days a week, and 10% using it 6 days a week. This seems to indicate a high degree of technological use and possibly inclination, regardless of occupation.

50 There are three main types of devices for e-reading (See Figure 1), and among the respondents they are distributed as follows: 50% of the respondents have the Rocket eBook, 20% use the Palm Pilot, 8.8% the REB 1100, 8.8% Pocket PCs (no brand indicated), 8 % have HP Jornada, and 5% other devices. (Casio Pocket Viewer, Visor, REB 1200, and TRGPro). Respondents have had their e-readers for 14 months on average.

Figure 1. Types of Devices. Correlations with Demographics Time of consecutive e-reading ranged from of an hour to 5 hours. A t-test for independent samples comparing men and women regarding the number of consecutive e-reading hours revealed a significant difference between the two groups (See Table 1). Table 1. Means of Consecutive E-Reading Hours by Gender Gender F (n = 62) M (n = 34) Mean 1.2087 1.9485 SD .828 1.196 T -3.55 P .033

No significant correlation was found between age and other factors, such as ereader use or e-reading preferences. An analysis of variance done to check for

51 differences between the means of three groups of users (i.e. users of dedicated e-readers, PDAs, and Pocket PCs) revealed no significant difference in the index favorability towards the e-reader (Question 20, items 1,2,3,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 14). ANOVA also failed to reveal any significant differences concerning the index attitudes towards the physical characteristics of e-readers (Question 20, items 4, 5, 6, and 12), even though the devices in fact differ. Similarly, no significant differences between the three groups were found regarding the purposes that users feel they could accomplish with an ereader (question 22). E-Reader Use Respondents use their e-readers several times a month, ranging between 1 and 80 times. For 22.9% of users the e-reader has replaced the computer totally, and for 64.6% it has replaced it partially. Regarding reading on paper, for only 6.3% the e-reader has replaced print totally, and for 83.3% it has replaced it partially. E-Reading Purposes Fifty six percent of the respondents said they e-read for information, whereas 75% e-read for pleasure (See Figure 2). Regarding the purposes or functions users think they could accomplish with a dedicated e-reader, the results show quite a variety of uses. This question called for hypothetical reasoning, that is, it was worded in such a way (i.e. using the modal could) as to encourage respondents to think beyond what they do and hypothesize as to what they might do with their devices. As seen in Table 2, the most frequently selected purpose is enjoyment or pleasure, and mental escape and staying informed follow. This is consistent with the responses to question 15a, which showed that a high percentage of users (75%) use their e-readers to read for pleasure.

52 Prayer is the least common purpose, which is consistent with the response to question 16, in which more than 57% of respondents said they do not read religious books. Figure 3 illustrates the most frequently chosen functions respondents think they could accomplish with their e-reader. Table 2. Purposes Respondents Could Accomplish with an E-Reader Purpose/Function Prayer Careful preparation Cross-reference Discussion aid Editing/proofreading Enjoyment/pleasure Information search Inspiration and ideas Listening aid Mental escape Research Review Skimming to get general idea Staying informed Study % of respondents 11.7 47.6 36.9 46.6 43.7 85.4 57.3 35.0 16.5 70.9 57.3 67.0 51.5 70.9 66.0

Figure 2. E-Reading Purposes.

53

Figure 3. Most Likely Functions for E-Readers. Strategies Used When E-Reading for Information Those who e-read for information (56% of respondents) use certain strategies much more than others. The most used strategy is paging forward or backward, and the least used are cross-referencing with other materials on the device and note taking on paper. Annotation is used sparingly (See Table 3). One of the respondents pointed out in a follow-up e-mail that she does not annotate because that option is not available in her Palm. Another respondent wrote that he thinks an e-reader is best for doing simple things, not serious work. Possible explanations for the less common use of certain strategies are discussed in Chapter 5. Table 3. Strategies Used When E-Reading for Information Mean 3.79 3.64 3.96 3.73 2.27 3.47 1.54 2.63 3.00 SD 1.24 .98 1.09 1.19 .92 1.14 .91 1.02 1.13

Annotate Consult marked sections Cross-reference with other materials on the ereader Cross-reference with materials on other media Look back at previous pages Look up words in the dictionary Page forward or backward Search with Find Set bookmarks

54 Skip around Take notes on paper Underline/highlight Use hyperlinks Use list of references Use TOC 3.07 3.96 3.40 2.97 3.61 2.44 .94 .95 1.21 1.31 1.08 1.09

The scale: Very often = 1 Often = 2 Sometimes= 3 Hardly ever = 4 Never = 5

Strategies Used When E-Reading for Pleasure Those who e-read for pleasure (75% of respondents) use paging most and hardly ever or never cross-reference with other materials, take notes on paper, or annotate. Table 4. Strategies Used When E-Reading for Pleasure Annotate Consult marked sections Cross-reference with other materials on the ereader Cross-reference with materials on other media Look back at previous pages Look up words in the dictionary Page forward or backward Search with Find Set bookmarks Skip around Take notes on paper Underline/highlight Use hyperlinks Use list of references Use TOC Mean 4.27 4.06 4.34 4.48 2.59 3.46 1.54 3.10 2.84 3.37 4.49 4.01 3.87 4.12 3.03 SD .98 .99 .84 .76 1.00 1.12 .83 1.07 1.27 .97 .82 1.10 1.11 .87 1.20

The scale: Very often = 1 Often = 2 Sometimes= 3 Hardly ever = 4 Never = 5

Media Used for Different Genres Question 16 (See Appendix B) allowed the choice of multiple media for each genre. As can be seen in Table 5, e-readers are clear winners for novels and short stories (i.e. reading for pleasure). Business documents are mainly read on a computer screen or on paper. Journal articles are still read mainly on paper, although the percentage of

55 respondents that chose computer screen was 64%. The same is true about manuals and how to books, which are read mainly on paper, although 58% of the respondents also chose the computer screen. Table 5. Media Used for Different Genres E-reader Biographies Business documents Journal articles Manuals and how to books Manuscripts for editing Newspaper/magazine articles Novels Poems Proposals Reference materials Religious books Reports Short stories Textbooks Travel guides Other 34.0 29.1 26.2 30.1 16.5 37.9 87.4 25.2 8.7 42.7 17.5 18.4 70.9 21.4 21.4 35.0 Computer screen 9.7 67.0 64.1 58.3 48.5 69.9 19.4 13.6 41.7 75.7 8.7 63.1 31.1 27.2 39.8 35.0 Print 47.6 68.0 74.8 73.8 42.7 82.5 75.7 39.8 51.5 79.6 32.0 68.9 63.1 66.0 58.3 37.9 Dont read 33.0 9.7 6.8 7.8 28.2 1.0 1.9 47.6 32.0 1.9 57.3 13.6 12.6 24.3 24.3 8.7

Media Preferred for Different Genres Respondents answers to questions 16 and 17 (See Appendix B) show a clear preference for e-readers to read for pleasure. However, what people do is not always what they prefer, perhaps because certain genres are not equally available in all media. For example, 10% more prefer having their travel guides in e-reader format than those who actually read them on the e-reader, 5% more prefer reading their textbooks on the e-reader than those who do, and 4% more respondents prefer reading journal articles on

56 their e-reader than those who actually do so (cf. Tables 5 and 6). One of the respondents wrote that she prefers different media at different times and in different situations, but NOT based on the kind of material. She added that availability is a primary motivator for choosing media. Another respondent wrote that an e-reader is rarely the best way to read anything; that either paper (for visual comfort and convenience) or a standard computer (for cross-references, searching, annotation etc.) are 'best'. He feels that the real point of an e-reader is where he can use it - traveling, waiting etc. The e-reader means he can have a choice of reading material in his pocket. Table 6. Media Preferred for Different Genres E-reader Biographies Business documents Journal articles Manuals and how to books Manuscripts for editing Newspaper/magazine articles Novels Poems Proposals Reference materials Religious books Reports Short stories Textbooks Travel guides Other 32.3 14.4 30.4 20.9 15.7 31.5 68.1 18.3 4.3 23.9 14.4 14.1 73.6 26.4 31.9 38.5 Computer screen 2.2 34.4 31.5 13.2 34.8 27.2 1.1 1.1 29.3 42.4 2.2 29.3 1.1 4.4 11.0 7.7 Print 30.1 41.1 32.6 56.0 20.2 40.2 28.7 30.1 33.7 31.5 23.3 40.2 13.2 46.2 36.3 26.9 Dont read 35.5 10.0 5.4 9.9 29.2 1.1 2.1 50.5 32.6 2.2 60.0 16.3 12.1 23.1 20.9 26.9

The possibility of marking Dont Read automatically in question 17 if respondents had chosen that option for a specific genre in the previous question was considered while programming the questionnaire. However, it was later rejected because

57 the question What medium do you prefer using for each text type? could be interpreted to include hypothetical situations (i.e. What medium would you prefer using). When comparing the percentages of the Dont Read column in both tables one can see that the discrepancies are not very big. As shown in Figure 4, e-readers are the preferred medium for reading fiction (short stories and novels).

Figure 4. Media Preferred for Reading Fiction. Preferred Layout and Navigation Mode Ninety percent of the respondents prefer portrait layout, and 90% of the respondents prefer paging over scrolling. Desirable Characteristics of E-Texts The most important characteristic respondents feel ideal e-texts should have is a table of contents. Next in importance are hyperlinks and illustrations and graphics. Most respondents also think that the text should have page numbers, headings, and highlighted words (See Table 7 and Figure 5).

58 Table 7. Desirable Characteristics of E-Texts Feature Topic sentences Short Table of contents or outline Abstract or summary Headings and subheadings Highlighted/bolded words Hyperlinks Illustrations and graphics Page numbers Two columns % of respondents 61.2 52.4 91.3 69.9 76.7 74.8 86.4 84.5 79.6 23.3

Figure 5. Desirable E-Text Features. Attitude Towards E-Readers Attitudes and opinions about e-readers among respondents are clearly positive, both regarding e-readers in general and regarding the respondents own e-readers (See Table 8). For example, 78.9% (including responses totally agree and agree) of the respondents prefer reading on their e-readers than from their desktop computer; 93.7% agree that reading with the e-reader is effective, and a similar percentage think it is efficient. Ninety six percent disagree with the statement that the e-reader makes them lose the context of what they read, and more than 70% feel they can both deep read and

59 skim with their e-reader. Eighty nine percent feel their device is comfortable to hold, 88.6% that its resolution is good, and 96.8% that the text on their screen is legible. Table 8. Attitudes and Opinions about E-Readers
Totally agree Agree Disagree Totally disagree No opinion

Can see very little text Prefer print over ereader Prefer e-reader over computer Comfortable to hold Resolution is good Weight is OK E-reading is effective E-reading is efficient E-reader causes disorientation E-reader gives feeling of security E-reader makes me lose the context Text is legible Cannot deep read Cannot skim

12.5 7.4 54.7 42.7 31.3 38.9 45.3 48.9 1.1 5.4

24.0 20.2 24.2 46.9 57.3 40.0 48.4 43.5 14.0 28.0 3.2

43.8 37.2 13.7 10.4 10.4 21.1 5.3 3.3 49.5 17.2 51.1 2.2 37.2 46.8

17.7 27.7 3.2 1.0

2.1 7.4 4.2

32.3 5.4 44.7 1.1 37.2 24.5

1.1 4.3 3.2 44.1 1.1 17.0 9.6

36.6 1.1 5.3

60.2 7.4 13.8

A respondent wrote a very detailed e-mail explaining how she feels about her ereader and e-reading. The following is a quote from her message: The primary advantage of the ebook for me is the convenience (I am never without it so that lines at the grocery, post office, doctor's offices, etc. are never a problem for me.), as well as the backlighting and various font sizes available... my greatest pleasure is to sit outside on my deck on the darkest of nights reading my Rocket eBook in total privacy and serenity; it's impossible to do that with print editions.

60 Importance of E-Reader Features Most of the features listed are considered very important or important. The most important ones are legibility, portability, easy navigation, ample storage, and ease of use (See Table 9). The least important feature is two display surfaces. Table 9. E-Reader Features Considered Important Feature Adjustable backlight Ample storage Compatibility Control over display layout Ease of use Easy navigation Legibility Light weight Long battery life Longevity Network connection Portability Possibility of adjusting font size Possibility of annotating Possibility of bookmarking Possibility of changing font type Possibility of entering own content Possibility of following hyperlinks Possibility of highlighting/underlining Possibility of paging Possibility of printing Possibility of searching Reasonable screen size Short delay for opening a document Short delay for turning a page Small size Two display surfaces Visual fidelity
Scale: Very important = 1 Important = 2

Mean 1.4 1.19 1.33 1.68 1.25 1.17 1.10 1.50 1.25 1.53 1.83 1.12 1.59 2.22 1.74 2.03 1.85 1.95 2.14 1.68 2.41 1.50 1.41 2.01 1.55 1.87 2.80 2.45

SD .66 .39 .58 .66 .44 .38 .34 .52 .43 .65 .76 .33 .63 .67 .61 .68 .80 .73 .64 .68 .73 .56 .59 .72 .69 .63 .45 .68

Unimportant = 3

61 The Case Study Methodology There were five observation sessions (of about 1 hour each) followed by semistructured interviews. Subjects were shown how to use the e-reader and given a choice of materials to read during the session. The interview agenda targeted a variety of aspects of the process of reading with e-readers. Observations The five subjects enjoyed the reading session and felt excited and intrigued about the novelty of the device. Four of them chose to read Stephen Kings novella, but one soon switched to the magazine and then switched and read part of the article. The fifth chose to read the article about the history of computers. The five subjects tried to use the landscape layout just because it was available (See Figure 6), but immediately switched back to portrait. One subject observed that the longer lines in the landscape layout confused him. He also said that the shape of the device, with the thicker part emulating a folded paperback, encourages portrait and is easier to hold that way. Another subject said she thought she would like landscape since she works with computers, but she did not.

62

Figure 6. D tries using landscape layout. They all utilized only three or four strategies, regardless of text type. Page forward was the most used strategy, for obvious reasons. Two of the subjects used page back: one of them observed he wanted to consult something he had read, and the other observed she was not concentrating, forgot what she had read, and therefore had to go back. The dictionary lookup feature was used by four out of the five subjects. They really liked the option to look up words and observed it was very useful and that with a regular book they probably would not have bothered to look words up in the dictionary. One of them also praised the fact she could move the dictionary popup window up or down to get it out of the way. The fifth subject did not use the dictionary. Not only is she a native speaker of English, but also she was completely immersed (Hill, 2001b) in her reading of the novella. All of the subjects who were reading Stephen Kings novella set bookmarks at the end of the session so as to be able to continue reading. Obviously if the subjects had been using their own e-reader, that would not have been

63 necessary, since the reader by default opens a book at the place where the user last stopped reading. Three of the subjects found the glare problematic. One of them complained that she had to fiddle with the backlight and she could not remember what she was reading before. Two of them touched the scrollbar and the Go to window opened up. They were startled and a little surprised by this device behavior. One of them commented that this disturbed her because she likes things to be predictable, and she expected the scrollbar to take her to the indicated place automatically, without having to confirm in the Go to window. Ts first reaction when she took the e-reader in her hands was, Its heavy. After a while, however, she said the weight was OK. She changed the light to 80% and said it felt good. She also liked holding the device. She said she noticed something was bothering her and realized it was the fact she could see her own reflection. If she found an angle that didnt reflect her image, then the e-reader was too flat. She liked the rotation feature very much. Her hand became numb, and she liked being able to take the book in her other hand and to rotate the display accordingly. S is left-handed and experimented a little at first in order to decide which hand to hold the book with. Then he decided to use his right hand, so he could use the stylus with the left one (See Figure 7). The rotation feature facilitated all this. He really liked the fact that the first page actually had the cover of the book. He saw a triangular mark and thought it might be interesting to see other peoples annotations, but then he wanted to delete all the annotations other people had put in and realized there was no option to

64 remove them all at once. Even though the Rocket has an option to delete all markings, the option deletes wholesale: notes, underlines and bookmarks. At the end of the session he commented that for the first time he could see the advantages of having a dedicated e-reader as opposed to a laptop computer. He was excited about the possibility of a heavy-duty e-reader with a larger screen that could contain his Jeeps manual for when he is on the road.

Figure 7. S holds the e-reader with his right hand and the stylus with his left. O switched books several times and was happy to see that each book opened where she had stopped. She sat comfortably and then lay down. She used the stylus to help her follow the lines as she read along. M lay down on her stomach and looked completely relaxed (See Figure 8). She experimented with the smaller font size but felt it was too small and switched back to big font size. After a short while she became completely absorbed in the story. Seeing M reading provided more evidence like that encountered by Nell (1988) in his studies, that ludic (i.e. playful, for pleasure) reading can take place under the most unlikely

65 circumstances, and therefore, laboratory reading (in this case not in a laboratory, but rather reading while observed) can be just like a natural reading experience. According to Nell (1988), one of the most interesting characteristics of ludic reading is that it is effortless. The ludic reader is completely relaxed and is able to resist outside distractions.

Figure 8. M lay down on her stomach and looked completely relaxed. D was excited when she saw that the book opened at the last location. She said, Thats a real advantage! If I fall asleep while reading, I will know where I was, whereas if I fall asleep with a regular book and it closes, I lose my place! She rotated the device to hold the thick part with her right hand, explaining she was used to reading that way in Hebrew (from right to left). Before she even started reading she commented, I can tell you already that this seems nicer than a book to read in bed because a book has two pages, and you have to hold it folded, change sides, hands, etc. Perhaps due to her background (She is an architect.), she commented she would have liked a map to visualize where the character in Kings novella went after class. She gave the example of Tolkiens King of the Rings, which has a map so readers can understand where things are in the virtual world. Even though she enjoyed the reading experience very much, she

66 said she likes seeing books on a bookshelf because that reminds her of what they are about, and she is prompted (by looking at their backs on the shelf) to read them again. She thinks that if she were to switch completely to digital books, she might miss that. She might not remember that the books are there on her computer. Interviews Two of the subjects said reading with the electronic device affected the way they read (See Appendix I). D said that using the dictionary and playing with the settings interrupted her reading. The reading itself, however, was the same; it just implied paging forward to move on. S also felt that looking up words in the dictionary was easy, but made him lose his place. M observed that she really enjoyed paging, which was really easy, since she just had to push a button. O, D and S felt that the reading experience was not significantly different from that of reading a traditional paper book. T observed that when reading a printed magazine she can do sampling to decide what she wants to read, whereas with the e-reader that task is harder. There was total agreement concerning comfort while reading with the e-reader. M just added that the only time this was not so was when she had to put down the e-reader because it felt heavy. There was almost total agreement concerning the size of the device for holding. The five subjects felt the resolution of the device was good. Concerning amount of text available on the screen (with the Rocket it is approximately 100 words when using a large font, and 200 words when using a small font), both T and D said they prefer full pages. M and O noted that the size of the screen did not bother them, and M said she liked the fact there were fewer words on the screen.

67 S noted that the size is fine for a narrative, but for a technical book such as a manual, a larger size would be important. T, O and D felt the e-reader did not cause disorientation. M and S felt it did a little. The five subjects felt the e-reader conveyed the feeling of security, but T and S felt it was not very different from how they feel on the web, perhaps a little cozier. Concerning the loss of context, T and D said they had no problem, and so did S, but he pointed out that if he had chosen the large font, there might not have been enough context available on the screen. In reply to the question about deep reading, D remarked that the new options made concentration harder. She said the online dictionary has advantages and disadvantages, one of the disadvantages being that using it interrupts the flow of reading. It is not clear whether she would have felt the same had she been a regular user of e-readers. The five subjects felt that the characteristics of the device helped them, M referred to the nice size and the big fonts, T liked the rotation option, and she and O very much enjoyed the dictionary. S enjoyed not having to turn pages and the possibility of changing position easily. Four of the subjects said they would prefer an e-reader for reading for pleasure, mainly because of its portability. O, on the other hand, felt she would use it for workrelated reading. The following are the e-reader features considered important by all subjects (for the table with all the results, see Appendix I): an adjustable backlight, ample storage capacity, ease of use -- S said, A complicated interface can spoil the fun of reading. --, easy navigation, light weight, a long battery life, longevity, portability, the possibility of

68 adjusting font size, the possibility of bookmarking, the possibilities of paging and searching for specific content, a reasonable screen size (See subjects reservations and comments in Appendix I), and a short delay when paging. Concerning the characteristics of texts for e-reading, there was no consensus on any of the items, but the following were selected by four out of the five subjects as important: a table of contents or outline, headings and subheadings, and page numbers. Summary of Results This section summarizes the results as they provide answers to the research questions. How do e-reader features influence the process of reading? Based on the observations and interviews, it seems the new options available to users of e-readers may influence the process of reading. For example, the ready availability of an online dictionary induces the strategy of dictionary lookup, which is helpful but interrupts the flow of reading. On the other hand, the medium itself allows relaxed, ludic reading and effortless paging. The interruptions that the user experiments at first, while learning to use the settings and other options apparently become less frequent as the user becomes comfortable with the settings selected and can relax and become immersed in the reading experience. Even though this was their first reading experience with an e-reader, three of the subjects felt that the experience of reading did not differ noticeably from that of reading on paper. In other words, the new options available may make concentration harder to achieve, but once the user has settled down, the device becomes transparent.

69 What strategies are applied to reading in the new medium? When reading for information, users mainly page forward and backward, suggesting a linear path, similar to that probably followed when reading a printed book. However, the three new possibilities afforded by the digital medium, i.e. the hyperlinked table of contents, the search capability and the existence of other hyperlinks, lend the navigation procedure a customizable character. When reading for pleasure, the process is closer to the process of reading a traditional book. Users mainly page forward, and occasionally backward to look at previous pages. However, the digital characteristics of the medium do not seem to otherwise affect the flow of reading or the strategies used. Do the characteristics of the reading device help readers or bother them? The level of satisfaction (favorability towards e-readers) reflected in the survey seems to indicate that users perceive the characteristics of the new medium as positive. This was confirmed in the interviews, where new users rather than regular users were asked about that. The interviewees felt the characteristics of the device, such as the possibility of rotating the display, the online dictionary, the possibility of adjusting the font size, and the easy-to-use paging buttons, were very helpful. Several respondents wrote e-mail to the investigator and added their comments to the survey. One of them pointed out that the primary benefit of e-readers is their portability, which allows reading in bed, in a chair, in a car, in a restaurant, etc. She added, I can read the book in bed with all of the lights out due to the backlight feature. I can change the font size when my eyes are tired or to read without glasses.

70 Do e-readers lend themselves more to certain texts and reading purposes? Based on the respondents replies (both on what media they use and which they prefer for each genre), it seems that at least for the present generation of dedicated ereaders, PDAs and Pocket PCs, the medium lends itself more to reading for pleasure, namely novels and short stories. This finding was also reflected in the interviews. What should texts be like to be read with these devices? The vast majority of respondents feel that e-texts should have a table of contents or outline and so did the interviewees. Hyperlinks and illustrations are also considered very important, and next in importance are page numbers, headings and highlighted words. That the text be short seems much less important for dedicated e-readers than it is for texts on the Internet. The least needed characteristic is two columns, perhaps due to the small size of the present generation of screens. This chapter briefly reviewed the methodology of the study and presented the results of the web survey and of the case study, describing the participants and their reported habits and attitudes towards e-reading. The information obtained in the observations and interviews served to confirm the findings of the survey and provided additional insights into the process of e-reading.

71

Chapter 5

Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations and Summary

Conclusions Users Habits The Use of E-Readers as a New Habit Based on several studies done around the world, Nell (1988) reports that the world adult population as a whole spends only 35 minutes a day reading, and of that as little as five minutes a day are spent reading books. Book readers are between 33 and 55% of the total adult population and they spend between 45 and 70 minutes a day reading books. The people that participated in the survey use a variety of media for reading: print, computers (both on and off-line), and e-readers (offline). Although the question of how long they spend reading books per day was not asked, one question tapped how long respondents spend e-reading at a time. The results show that the average consecutive time spent reading with the e-reader is 1.2 hours for women and 1.9 for men. It is difficult to explain this difference between men and women, but what is seen from the results is that men concentrate on their e-reading for longer periods at a time. It is possible that this difference between men and women is also present in reading with traditional media. Reinking (1998) predicted that printed materials would never again completely dominate literate activity. It seems his prediction was correct. E-readers have not been around for too long, the first commercially available devices having been released mid-

72 1998, but they have conquered a considerable niche in many peoples reading practices. Participants in the Interquest focus groups, to whom the Everybook prototypes were presented (Davidson et al., 1997), were intrigued by the technology and said they would like to try it, but did not see it replacing printed books. That was a hypothetical response to a demonstration. However, for the respondents of the present survey, who are already e-reader users, using an e-reading device has become a normal activity, having replaced (either totally or partially) computer reading for 87% of users, and print reading for 89% of users. This suggests that if e-reading devices became cheaper and their use more widespread, they could become an acceptable alternative medium for reading. The question remains, however, of who the likely adopters might be. At present e-readers appeal to a small elite segment of technologically-inclined consumers. The population that participated in the survey seems to point to a typical early adopter that is well educated and technologically adept. Respondents feel that their e-reading is efficient, and they feel comfortable using their e-readers. Most respondents (79%) prefer reading with their dedicated devices than reading from their desktop computer screens. Do users of e-readers change their habits as a result of the use of the new medium? In reviewing research on how writers adapt their strategies to computer writing, and whether their composing habits change with the technology, Hawisher and Selfe (1998) found that a writer's habits and strategies for composing take precedence over the influence of computers. In other words, writers bring their writing habits with them. This finding is a little surprising, since one would expect new features available through new technologies to have some effect on users habits and routines. E-readers open up

73 different opportunities and reading modes. One respondent pointed out in her comments that the portable, backlit device allows reading in situations and contexts that were unimaginable with older technologies. That necessarily changes reading circumstances and practices. It is now possible to read in the dark just as it is possible to read any of a number of books or documents available on the e-reading device while waiting at the dentists clinic or in the supermarket line. What people do when they e-read for pleasure, however, seems to be very similar to what they do when they read a printed book. People know how to read from printed books, and they quickly learn how to read from e-readers, which were developed according to the book metaphor. As Hill (2001a) wrote in a message to the eBook List, there is a lot of value in the way the book does things - that's why it's been around so long. It's the most mature user interface on information that we have Most of us learned to read when we were knee-high to our parents and nobody ever asked us to learn Reading Version 2. There are no new menus, commands or procedures. Learn it once, use it the rest of your life. It seems ereaders duplicate that experience quite well. As Hill says, they build new functionality without breaking the old. The new options available in e-reading devices encourage the use of such features as the online dictionary, particularly when the user is reading in a foreign language, as was observed in the present case study and the interviews. From the responses to the online questionnaire, however, we see that this feature is not very frequently utilized. That might be the result of the quality and scope of the dictionaries available. In Simons (2001) small pilot study, the built-in dictionary was the most used of the e-

74 readers features. Nevertheless, several students expressed dissatisfaction with the general-purpose dictionary available. Making specialized dictionaries available for ereaders could enhance work or study-related e-reading. Offline e-reading is a new habit for e-reader users, one that could spread to other populations if devices and digital texts were to become more accessible. This new habit is easy to adopt thanks to the ease of use of the new devices and their physical characteristics, which make them portable, light and comfortable to use. E-Reading Strategies E-Reading for Information McKnight (1996) observes that watching a reader pick up an issue of a journal, skim through the contents, turn to an article and skim through it and then turn back to the contents, all in a matter of seconds, it is clear that such skills are largely automatic. He adds that watching people trying to do the same thing in an electronic journal system, it is clear that people will have to learn a different set of skills. The use of skills and strategies when reading on e-reading devices was investigated in the present study. The results show that when e-reading for information, the most used strategy is paging (forward or backward), followed by looking back at previous pages (presumably achieved by paging backward), using the table of contents, searching with Find, and using hyperlinks. It is interesting to note that all of these strategies are related to navigation, paging reflecting linear navigation, and the other strategies reflecting nonlinear or hypertextual navigation. All these strategies enable text inspection (Paris et al., 1991).

75 Regarding the strategy of digital searching, Wearden (1998a) found that students wanted the search capability in e-books; Kol and Schcolnik (1997) found that students do not always know how to use the find feature of the word processor; and one of the issues checked in the present investigation was whether users of e-readers exploit the search capability in their devices. The results show that they do and more so when reading for information. The less commonly used strategies, such as note taking on paper, annotating within the text, and underlining, are related to reading for work and study and constitute indications of a deeper engagement with the text (Marshall, 1997; Marshall et al., 1999). Why is it that users of e-readers are more willing to navigate than to study the text? Is this evidence of what Birkerts (1994) feared was happening, the emphasis on quantity over quality? Levy (1997) suggested that there is a general trend toward shallower, more fragmented and less concentrated reading. Is the predominance of navigation strategies in e-reading a reflection of the influence web-browsing has had on our reading patterns? Or is it a consequence of the characteristics of the device, which make study strategies less comfortable? It is this investigators opinion that this is the consequence of device characteristics, which make the writing interface awkward. People who would normally annotate on paper feel less comfortable doing it on the reading device. The e-reading devices that allow annotation (not all do) require the use of a stylus for clicking on a tiny keyboard that is displayed on screen, or carefully writing on the screen by tracing the characters so they are recognized and transformed into print. This investigation does not provide answers to these questions, but future research may look into these issues further.

76 The problem of digital annotation is not new. Annotation on computers was also found to be problematic. OHara and Sellen (1997) compared two groups while they were reading with the purpose of writing a text summary. One group read and worked on the computer, while the other read and worked on paper. One of the subjects from the computer group commented that annotation would have been much easier and more flexible on paper. OHara and Sellen infer that the interaction techniques (mouse and keyboard) are not smooth for annotating. Another explanation they give for the general reluctance to annotate is that annotations make changes to the original document. Moreover, their subjects expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the annotations were not perceptually distinct from the underlying text. In the present study, 32% of respondents said they hardly ever annotate, and 35% said they never annotate. This is consistent with Simons (2001) pilot study, in which annotation was the least used strategy. Simon sees the gap between what subjects in Weardens (1998a) study said they wanted and what users in his pilot study actually used as typical of new technologies. Electronic annotation, then, which Marshall (1998) predicted would be a key function for the reading machine and the students in Wearden (1998a) pointed to as one of the main features e-readers should have, is not frequently used in these first generations of reading machines. According to Marshall (1998), annotating digital materials is not a straightforward activity yet because we have neither the practices nor the tools for doing this as fluidly as we do it on paper. In the present generation of ereaders, this capability of free-form annotation, similar to what is done on paper, and like that allowed by the XLibris prototype, does not exist. The XLibris prototype

77 (http://www.fxpal.xerox.com/xlibris/) uses a high-resolution pen tablet display along with a paper-like user interface to allow marks with digital ink. Marshall et al. (1999) found that annotations on paper and in the XLibris device were similar in style and quality. Schilit et al. (1999) suggest that reading appliances should allow users to make free-form, idiosyncratic marks on the text. This is not yet possible with commercially available e-reading devices. The fact that people annotate text indicates a higher degree of engagement with the text, but the reverse statement (i.e. the fact they do not annotate indicates a lower degree of engagement with the text) cannot be inferred. Webster (1996) defines engag (from French) as having chosen to involve oneself in or commit oneself to something, as opposed to remaining aloof or indifferent. Comments from participants in the survey and the observations in the case study both show that real immersion in the text does take place, and is immersion not evidence of engagement? E-Reading for Pleasure When e-reading for pleasure, paging and looking back at previous pages are frequently used strategies. However, use of the table of contents, searches with Find and the use of hyperlinks are much less frequent than when reading for information. That is, navigation is still the most dominant strategy, but that navigation is almost exclusively linear. Not surprisingly, text engagement strategies, such as annotating, underlining or taking notes on paper, are even less used here than when reading for information. This is probably so because in reading for pleasure readers immerse themselves in the reading process and often ignore additional activities. Moreover, readers purpose is not to study the text but to follow and enjoy the storyline.

78 Users Preferences Layout and Navigation Mode The finding that most respondents prefer portrait layout is consistent with the literature (Wearden, 1998b). The finding that respondents prefer paging over scrolling is also consistent with the findings reported in the literature (Hill, 2001b; McCusker, 1998; Muter, 1996; Piolat et al., 1997; Roussey & Thunin, 1997). The advantage of paging can be attributed to the ability to remember the text by its appearance and arrangement, and to remember details by their location on the page (Severinson et al., 1996). The readers internal representation of the organization of the text can be facilitated by the elements on the screen or page (Grabinger & Osman-Jouchoux, 1996). Preferred types of texts Predictions have been made that e-readers would be used mainly for work (Davidson et al., 1997). However, the majority of respondents use their e-readers for reading fiction. This may very well change once more work and study-suitable device models are launched (e.g., Everybook Reader, goReader, Myfriend). Or it may change once more work or study-related documents become available in suitable file formats. The results of this study indicate that the preferred medium for reading manuals, how to books, and textbooks is print, and the preferred medium for reading reference materials is the computer screen. Within the scope of this research, it is hard to assess whether the reason for this is the resistance of old habits, device characteristics, or text availability issues.

79 E-Reading Purposes Based on the opinions expressed by their focus group participants, Davidson et al. (1997) predicted that people would probably continue to prefer bound books when the purpose of reading is pleasure. Schilit (1999) and Schilit et al. (1999) claim that reading appliances can facilitate the task of structuring large quantities of information, while reading for pleasure benefits less from reading appliances. Nevertheless, the results of the present investigation show that the main purpose the early adopters (average of ereader use among respondents was 14 months) adopted the devices for was reading for pleasure. Whether that is a direct result of the availability of fiction as compared to work-related or study-related materials, or a consequence of the characteristics of the current generation of e-readers would have to be investigated in future research. According to the present research, the most likely purposes of the present generation of e-readers are: pleasure, escape, staying informed, review, and study in that order. It seems that reading with dedicated devices solves the problem of busyness and fragmentation (Levy, 1997) that is typical of hypertext. Forty four percent of users had no opinion concerning the feeling of security conveyed by the e-reader as a result of its contained environment, but this would be an issue worthy of investigation in the future. Do e-readers have an effect on attention? If the what, how, where, and why of reading (Levy, 1997) change with e-readers, will reading practice change as a result? This research did not look at reading software that can be used on desktop and laptop computers, such as the Microsoft Reader. However, an interesting discussion in the eBook list recently dealt with the capability of blocking all background around the reader pages by making it black. Several participants pointed out that this enhances

80 concentration. One reader said she had always been able to concentrate completely on what she was reading and never paid attention to what was in the room or background. However, since trying this new digital experience with the Microsoft Reader, she realized blocking of the background enhanced the reading experience. The contained environment of the e-reader may have a similar effect. Douglas and Hargadon (2000) say that readers enjoy immersive experiences because they expect to lose themselves in a narrative. According to Hill (2001b), readers should be able to immerse themselves in e-reading for hours, in the same way as they do with a printed book. He stresses that e-reading on the screen needs to be as automatic and unconscious as reading from paper. From the surveys respondents answers, it seems that with e-reading devices, this is already a reality for them. Most users prefer using their e-readers for reading for pleasure. Why is it that the devices in the present generation of e-readers are perceived mainly as devices for ludic reading or for reading to stay informed (magazine or newspaper articles)? Is the reason for this their size, the fact they are small and therefore more suitable for that type of reading? Or is it because the computer and print are still regarded as more suitable for serious activities? Of the five main types of reading in Goodmans (1994) classification, environmental, occupational, informational, recreational and ritualistic reading, recreational reading is the strongest purpose for e-reading. However, this may very well change with the release of new devices and the increased availability of a variety of electronic texts.

81 Desirable Device Characteristics According to the survey respondents, e-readers should, above all, be legible, portable, have easy navigation, ample storage and ease of use. Both the features chosen and their order of importance are completely consistent with Roush and Schauls (2000) results concerning what users of the Rocket e-reader consider most important features. According to the respondents, e-readers should also be compatible with other systems, be light weight, have a reasonable screen size and allow searching. There are two findings of the survey that are not consistent with previous research: 1. Based on their research of reading in work-related settings, Adler et al. (1998) recommend that reading devices support writing in conjunction with reading. The results of the present investigation do not support that need. The possibilities of annotating, underlining and highlighting are considered much less important than other features. 2. Participants in the Interquest study (Davidson et al., 1997) felt that being able to see two pages at once would be an important advantage of reading devices. Adler et al. (1998) also recommend that digital reading devices allow multiple displays. However, the results of this survey indicate that two display surfaces are considered the least important of all reading device characteristics. Desirable Text Characteristics Texts that comply with the following characteristics are more easily scanned (Morkes & Nielsen, 1997). Consistent with Morkes and Nielsen, the following characteristics are also those that were selected by respondents. 1. E-texts should have a table of contents or outline. Muter (1996) refers to tables of contents as enhancements of conventional text that enable selective access and may

82 affect efficiency of reading. According to the present research, texts for e-reading should indeed have a table of contents. This is also consistent with Henke (1998), who reported that 97% of the subjects used the table of contents. It is also consistent with Landoni, Wilson and Gibbs (2000) guidelines and with Kol and Schcolniks (2000) recommendation. 2. E-texts should have hyperlinks. If links in fact control access to information (Burbules, 1998), then the more available links are, the more in control readers will feel. Readers may choose to use or ignore the available links, but the choice is theirs, and that puts them in control. 3. E-texts should have illustrations and graphics. E-texts can draw on a range of meaning systems including illustrations (Thurstun, 2000), and this can enhance readers access to meaning. Moreover, in electronic texts graphical information and texts can be merged as one structural unit (Reinking, 1992), thus making the electronic text a unique product, clearly distinguishable from printed texts. 4. E-texts should have page numbers. This finding confirms the suggestions in the literature (Selvidge & Phillips, 2000). Page numbers are a clue that readers are used to having (McCusker, 1998), and therefore, even in dynamic pages (pages that vary depending on screen and font size) they can be helpful. 5. E-texts should have headings as suggested in the literature (Grabinger & OsmanJouchoux, 1996; Gilreath, 1993; Mc Eneaney, 2000). Only 52% of respondents chose short as an important feature of e-texts. It seems that length of text is not as important for dedicated e-readers as it is for web texts

83 (Morkes & Nielsen, 1997). The least popular feature in this research was two columns, a finding opposed to Weardens (1998b). Implications The investigation into reading with dedicated e-readers makes a contribution to our knowledge about reading, the ways in which reading is changing, users preferences and problems, and the effects of this new technology on reading practices. What emerges from this study is that e-readers have conquered a niche in the world of reading. For many people the e-reader has become a normal reading medium, having partially or totally replaced the computer and print. Answers to the research questions were obtained, and the following implications are organized according to those questions. Do the characteristics of the reading device help readers or bother them? Based on the reactions of the subjects in the case study, who were not users, the learning curve for e-readers is not steep, and that contributes to peoples willingness to adopt them. E-readers are quickly perceived as efficient, comfortable, and transparent tools. This research also looked at users perceptions and opinions regarding the experience of reading with e-readers and found that they are very positive. This is important because it paints a positive future for e-readers, since as McKnight (1996) says, users preferences are likely to be a determining feature in the success or failure of any technology.

84 Do e-readers lend themselves more to certain texts and reading purposes? Previous research to clarify purposes of reading either looked at college students (Lorch et al., 1993), at the activities of a work context (Adler et al., 1998), or at reading among children (Greaney & Neuman, 1990). The present research looked at a general population of e-reader users and found that the most popular purpose is reading for pleasure. The implication is that if e-readers are to be more widely adopted in work and study-related contexts, added functionalities and features may have to be incorporated. What strategies are applied to reading in the new medium? Previous research on reading strategies deals with reading strategies when reading on paper (Paris et al., 1991), on computers (Henke, 1998), and on the XLibris prototype (Marshall, 1997; Marshall et al., 1999). This research investigated the strategies used when reading on dedicated readers, and some answers are now available. This study found that when e-reading for pleasure, users mainly read linearly. The reading devices can change reading circumstances and practices, but they do not influence reading for pleasure practices considerably. Users do very similar things when using their e-readers as they do when reading traditional books for pleasure. In reading for information, however, users seem to use fewer strategies than those they use when reading on paper. Strategies such as annotation are less frequent. Unless new devices incorporate free-form annotation, new study strategies may need to be taught. The search capability, which is absent when reading on paper but present when reading on the computer, is exploited when users e-read for information.

85 What characteristics should texts have to be read with these devices? The results of the research indicate the characteristics that are perceived as important for e-texts. According to Dillon (1996), to judge if electronic text is usable we need to mention the tasks for which it is usable, the nature of the information models required by readers, the manipulation facilities involved, and the image quality of the screen that affects the standard reading processes of the reader. Using this type of explicit description to encapsulate the results of this research concerning desirable e-text characteristics, one might say that for reading text types for which readers have a well developed information model, on an e-reading device, texts that have a table of contents or outline, hyperlinks, illustrations and graphics, page numbers and headings are preferable. Writers and publishers should take these recommendations into account when preparing their texts for publication as e-books. The knowledge gained in this investigation can help predict possible future applications of e-readers. There are many interesting derivations of the subject. For example, many questions come to mind concerning strategic reading (Paris et al., 1991). What happens with adult strategic readers when reading takes place in a new medium? Can the strategies be transferred and applied to the new medium, or do the characteristics of the medium dictate the strategies to be applied? At present the use of e-readers is voluntary, a conscious choice made by users. One would assume that users would not make this choice if they felt that their strategic reading would function less effectively. However, if it is true that in the future e-readers may be the main reading medium available (e.g., for students), what will happen to those who have trouble transferring their reading strategies from an old medium to a new one, or learning new

86 or more adequate strategies? Special strategy training may need to be implemented. Judging from the results of this study with early adopters, it seems that the transfer is quite smooth and special training is hardly required. However, whether this will remain true with the next generation of devices, which may be more geared towards work and study contexts and offer more sophisticated options, remains to be checked. Recommendations The findings of the study can provide guidance for subsequent experimental research dealing with more specific user populations or special reading purposes. Recommendations for further research include a variety of focus areas: 1. Among early adopters, there is evidence of the use of the three media (ereaders, computers and print) for reading, although preferences are divided. One could check whether proportions change once more people adopt ereaders. This is of interest because as people grow used to the new medium, one may well witness a redistribution of reading media. One might investigate reasons for preferences of specific media for certain genres and purposes, and longitudinal studies could document changes over time. 2. One may investigate why navigation strategies are more common than study strategies in e-readers and produce recommendations for better study features for new devices. 3. Future studies may focus on the possible effect of e-readers on attention while reading. New e-reading devices may have practical applications in work and study settings. Their implementation in educational settings would imply, as the introduction of a new

87 technology always has, the acceptance of the technology by educational policy makers, the adoption of the technology by teachers and students, the planning of training courses for users, and the conversion of educational materials to the new medium. Summary This study focused on the process of reading with electronic reading devices. The goal of this research was to discover if the features of e-readers somehow influence the process of reading and in what way, what users do, what they choose to e-read, and how they do it. It also attempted to characterize ideal texts for reading on these devices. The population of this study was adult users of e-readers. The following research questions guided this investigation: How do e-reader features influence the process of reading? What strategies are used when reading in the new medium? Do the characteristics of the reading device help readers or bother them? Does the new medium lend itself more to certain types and purposes of reading? What kinds of texts do readers feel comfortable reading with digital devices? What are desirable features of e-texts for reading with these devices? The research consisted of two parts: a web survey and a case study. The survey questionnaire, which was custom developed for this study, focused on e-reading habits, purposes, strategies and preferences, e-reader features, and e-text characteristics. Reliability of specific scales in the questionnaire was checked by calculating the Cronbach alpha coefficient. The observations and interviews focused on the same aspects but were not limited to them. The five subjects of the case study were first shown how to use the e-reader and were given a choice of three kinds of materials to read during the session: a narrative, an

88 expository article, and a digital magazine. After the observation, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews to see how the subjects felt about the reading experience, and whether they would adopt the new medium for reading. The survey questionnaire was placed on the web and announced in the e-Book List and in several Internet newsletters and bulletins. Demographic data on the respondents were collected, including age, gender, occupation, native language, and education. Possible relationships among the demographic variables and reported e-reading habits, strategies, and preferences were explored. The respondents needed to be regular e-reader users to be included in the survey, and this pre-requisite was clearly stated in the cover letter. More than 100 respondents participated in the survey. However, it is not possible to estimate what percentage of the population of e-reader users (including users of dedicated e-readers, PDAs and Pocket PCs) they represent, nor is it possible to know how the respondents differ from the population of e-reader users as a whole. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that the demographic profile of the respondents is similar to that of most early adopters of e-readers, at least regarding education and frequency of computer use. Therefore, although the findings of this investigation cannot be claimed to represent all users of e-readers, they can point to general trends. The survey respondents had the following characteristics: Ages ranged from 16 to 73 and 60% of the respondents were women. Eighty five percent of the respondents had a higher education degree, indicating a highly educated population. The respondents included individuals in a range of occupations, including computer-related work,

89 librarians, writers, business people, educators, publishers, social workers, lawyers, editors, students, retired and others. Eighty nine percent of the respondents were native speakers of English, and the rest were speakers of other languages. Many people e-read in more than one language. More than 90% of the respondents use their computers daily, indicating a technologically adept population, regardless of occupation. They own three main types of devices for e-reading: dedicated e-readers, PDAs and Pocket PCs. Time of consecutive e-reading ranges from of an hour to 5 hours. A t-test for independent samples comparing men and women regarding the number of consecutive e-reading hours revealed a significant difference between the two groups (1.2 hours women vs. 1.9 men). No significant correlation was found between age, education, e-reader type, and other factors. The main results of the survey include the following: 1. What People E-Read - E-readers are preferred for reading fiction. Business documents are mainly read on a computer screen or on paper. Journal articles are still read mainly on paper, and the same is true about manuals and how to books (although more than half of the respondents also read these genres on their computer screens). Based on the respondents replies (both on what media they use and which they prefer for each genre), it seems that at least for the present generation of dedicated ereaders, PDAs and Pocket PCs, the medium lends itself more to reading for pleasure, namely novels and short stories. This finding was also reflected in the interviews. 2. What People Do When They E-Read - For those who e-read for information the most used strategy is paging forward or backward, and the least used are cross-

90 referencing with other materials on the device and note-taking on paper. Annotation is used sparingly. However, the search capability is exploited. Those who e-read for pleasure use paging most and hardly ever or never crossreference with other materials, take notes on paper, or annotate. When reading for pleasure, the process is closer to the process of reading a traditional book. Use of the table of contents, searches with Find and use of hyperlinks are much less frequent than when reading for information. Navigation is almost exclusively linear. 3. Why People E-Read - More than half of the respondents e-read for information, but a much higher percentage e-read for pleasure. The most frequently selected reading purposes were enjoyment or pleasure, and then mental escape and staying informed. 4. How People Like to E-Read - Ninety percent of the respondents prefer portrait layout, and 90% of the respondents prefer paging over scrolling. 5. What E-Texts Should Be Like - The most important characteristic is a table of contents. Next in importance are hyperlinks and illustrations and graphics. Most respondents also think that the text should have page numbers, headings, and highlighted words. That the text be short seems much less important for dedicated ereaders than it is for texts on the Internet. The least needed characteristic is two columns, perhaps due to the small size of the present generation of screens. 6. How People Feel About E-Reading - Attitudes and opinions about e-readers among respondents are clearly positive, both regarding e-readers in general and regarding the respondents own e-readers. For example, most prefer reading on their ereaders than from their desktop computers; feel that reading with the e-reader is

91 effective, efficient, and comfortable, and that their e-reader has good resolution and good readability. 7. What E-Reading Devices Should Be Like - The most important features are legibility, portability, easy navigation, ample storage, and ease of use. The least important feature is two display surfaces. The results of the case study point to very similar attitudes and choices, except for the dictionary lookup feature, which was used by four out of the five subjects. Another important observation is that three of the subjects found the glare problematic. The five subjects felt that the characteristics of the device helped them, some referring specifically to the nice size and the big fonts, the rotation option, as well as not having to turn pages, and the possibility of changing position easily. Based on the observations and interviews, it seems the new options available to users of e-readers may influence the process of reading. For example, the ready availability of an online dictionary induces the strategy of dictionary lookup, which is helpful but interrupts the flow of reading. On the other hand, the medium itself allows relaxed, ludic reading and effortless paging. The interruptions that the user experiments at first while learning to use the settings and other options apparently become less frequent as the user becomes comfortable with the settings selected, can relax and become immersed in the reading experience. Even though this was their first reading experience with an e-reader, three of the subjects felt that the experience of reading did not differ noticeably from that of reading on paper. In other words, the new options available may make concentration harder to achieve, but once the user has settled down, the device becomes transparent.

92 E-readers have not been around for too long, but they have conquered a considerable niche in many peoples reading practices. For the respondents of the survey, using an e-reading device has become a normal activity, having replaced (either totally or partially) computer reading and print reading for the majority of users. Most respondents prefer reading with their dedicated devices than reading from their desktop computer screens. Offline e-reading is a new habit for e-reader users, one that could spread to other populations if devices and digital texts were to become more accessible. This new habit is easy to adopt thanks to the ease of use of the new devices and their physical characteristics that make them portable, light, and comfortable to use. Contrary to predictions made in the past, the results of the present investigation show that the main purpose for which the early adopters adopted the devices was reading for pleasure. Whether that is a direct result of the availability of fiction as compared to work-related or study-related materials, or a consequence of the characteristics of the current generation of e-readers, would have to be investigated in future research. According to the present research, the most likely purposes of the present generation of e-readers are: pleasure, escape, staying informed, review, and study in that order. The investigation into reading with dedicated e-readers makes a contribution to our knowledge about reading, the ways in which reading is changing, users preferences and problems, and the effects of this new technology on reading practices. Future research could check whether proportions of media used and preferred for various genres and purposes change once e-readers become more widespread. It could

93 also check the reasons for specific preferences and if there are any changes over time. It may investigate why navigation strategies are more commonly used than study strategies in e-readers and produce recommendations for better study features to be incorporated in future devices. It may also focus on the possible effect of e-readers on attention while reading.

94

Appendix A - Technical Appendix

Dedicated E-Readers, PDAs and Pocket PCs The information in the following table was taken from the eBookNet Hardware Buying Guide (Sanders & Roush, 2000), eBookNets special report on Japan (Sanders & Sanders, 2000), from the Seybold Bulletin (2001), from Roush (2001), and from company sites. Some of the information on these devices is still unavailable.

95

Table 10. E-Readers

Device AlphaBook (prototype) Size Weight Screen Battery Life Memory eBook Format Connectivity Price Features

8.5 x 11

2.4 lb

Full color, 12.1 inch, 105-dpi touch-screen

PDF files

Built-in modem

Approx. $450

* Handwriting recognition * Internet browsing capabilities * Annotation * Highlighting * Two-page viewing feature * Multi-function: calendar, planner, MP3 player, microphone jack, scientific calculator, unique search technology * Multimedia capability * Multiple applications such as Word and IE

Casio Cassiopeia E125

5.1 in. by 0.6 lb (250g) 3.25 in. by 0.75 in. (13.12 cm by 8.36 cm by 2.0 cm) 5.0 in. by 3.3 in. by 0.8 in. 0.6 lb

65,536 colors, 6 hours 320 x 240 pixels

Microsoft 32 MB, expandable Reader using Compact Flash cards

$423 Cradle with USB connector $599.95 to Windows PCs

Casio EM500 Series

65,536 colors, 6 hours 320 x 240 pixels

16 MB, Microsoft expandable Reader using new 64 MB Multimedia

Cradle with $322.57USB connector $499.99 to Windows PCs

* Multimedia capability

96

Memory Cards Compaq iPaq H3600 Series 5.1 in. by 3.3 in. by 0.6 in. 0.4 lb touch-sensitive, 4096 colors, 2.26 in. by 3.02 in. (5.76 cm by 7.68 cm), 320 x 240 pixels 12 hours Microsoft 32 MB, expandable ClearType Reader using Compact Flash cards Cradle with $499 USB connector $699.95 to Windows PCs * Audio player * Software keyboard * Handwriting recognition * Voice recorder * Backlight * 5 customizable buttons * 4 Buttons * 5 Fonts * 7 Character sizes * Adjustable backlight * Underlining * On-screen keyboard * Bookmarking * Pageometer to see relative place in document or jump to another place * Built-in dictionary * 2 screens * Case molded with soft-feel cover * Portrait display * Annotation and highlighting * Popup keypad * Keyword search * Full motion video * Digital audio * Multi-function (ereader audio-book

Cytale (French e-reader)

2 lb

8 1/4 inch by 6 1/4 inch color touch screen

15,000 pages, expandable using PCMCIA card

Proprietary Direct access to OEB-based Internet standard or Html files

$800

Everybook (was not released; is being redesigned to offer PC-like functionality)

21.1 in diagonally each screen

16-million color Internal palette touch battery with screens, 450 dpi external booster

OEB standard, PDF files

Built-in modem

$1600 $2000

Franklin eBookMan

5.2 in. by

0.4 lb

16-level

Depends on 8 MB - 16

Franklin Reader, Cradle with

$179.99 -

97

eBookMan 3.4 in. by (EBM-900, 0.7 in. EBM-901, and EBM-911)

grayscale, 200 x use. 240 pixels

MB, and soon expandable Microsoft with MMC Reader cards

USB connector $229.99 to Windows PCs (optional serial connection available)

reader, audio-book player, music player & PDA functions) * Speaker * Adjustable font size * Adjustable display orientation * Microphone * Backlight * Stylus * Handwriting recognition * Note-taking * Removable lid * Advanced search function * Backlight * Built-in calculator, calendar, electronic notepad, & dictionary * Copy and paste text, equations, & images * Enhanced font technology (sub-pixel rendering) * Magnification of images * Multi-color highlighting * Note taking * Notes can be saved, printed, & shared * Soft protective cover * Stylus * Touch screen

goReader (not yet released; designed for higher education market)

< 5 lbs

7.3" X 9.7" full- > 5 hours, extra color SVGA screen, 800x600 battery pack dpi, antiglare

5 GB Hard OEB standard disk drive; 32 MB DRAM (350 etextbooks)

USB for connectivity; etextbooks are downloaded via the goReader website

$400 to $600

98

Handspring Visor

4.8 in. x 3.0 in. x 0.7 in.

0.33 lb

Black and white, 2 months, depending 160 x 160 on use pixels, except for the Visor Prism, which has 65,000-color display Color, 320 x 240 8 hours pixels

2 MB to 8 MB

.DOC, .PRC, and .PDB

Cradle with USB connector to PC or Macintosh

$149 - $449

* Multi-function

Hewlett Packard Jornada 540 Series

5.2 in. by 0.6 lb 3.1 in. by (260g) 0.6 in (13 cm by 7.8 cm by 1.6 cm)

Microsoft 16 MB Reader 32 MB, expandable using Compact Flash cards

Cradle with $449.95 USB connector $549 to Windows PCs & infrared port

* Multi-function * On-screen keyboard * Handwriting recognition * 4 customizable screen icons * 2 quick keys * Speaker & microphone * Built-in voice recorder * Audio player * MP3 Player * Audio recorder (builtin microphone) * Multi-function: games, address book, memo, music player, calendar, calculator * Backlight * Headphones * Authoring and publishing tools * Software development kit * Metallic finish * Metallic protective

Hiebook

320 x 480 10.5 oz

5.6-inch diagonal backlit touch screen LCD 320 x 480 pixels

16 MB ROM + 2 MB RAM Memory can be expanded to 128 MB with SMC memory.

Hiebook reader - USB connection XML OEB compliant

Japanese eBook

215 x 170 800 g Power XGA 1024 x 25 (1 76 lb ) di l i h b tt i

Click Disk

Click Disk is i t di t

99

Consortium (JEC) Device

(1.76 lb.) 768 display with batteries x 25 ~ 8 shades of gray (4AA) or 31.2 mm AC adapter (8.5 x 6.7 x 1.2 inches)

memory card. (40MB capacity)

inserted into kiosk and title downloaded, or downloaded straight from the Internet Microsoft ClearType Reader Internal modem; will have wireless connectivity

cover

Microsofts Pocket PC

color

* Annotation * Audio capability * Bookmarking * Can play high quality audio & video * Dictionary * Handwriting recognition * Highlighting * Images * Scroll wheel * Search * Table of contents * Underlining * Up and down buttons * MP3 audio * PDA features * Windows Media Player * Internet Explorer 4.0

Myfriend

7.75 in. x 7 in. x 1

1.75 lbs.

4 hours 32,768 colors (16 bit), 6.2 x 4.3 in. (7.5 in. diagonally), 640 x 960 pixels, 150 dots per inch

32 MB, expandable to 64 MB or more using Compact Flash cards

.html, .txt, OEB, and .lit (Microsoft Reader), as well as MP3 and graphic files (.gif, .bmp, .jpg, etc.)

About $1,200 Built-in 56K telephone modem, IRDA port, USB interface to PC, optional PCMCIA card slot for Ethernet or wireless LAN Cradle with serial connector to PC or $149 - $599

Palm PDAs

Approx. 5 0.4 lb in. x 3.2 in. x 0.7

Black and white Depends on 2 MB to 8 (except for the use MB Palm IIIc, which

.doc, .prc, and .pdb

* Touch screen * Backlight * Handwriting

100

in.

has a color display). 2.25 in. by 2.25 in., 160 x 160 pixels 1.1 lbs Black and white, 15 to 35 3 in. by 4.5 in., hours 320 x 480 pixels, 108 dots per inch .rb, a proprietary 8 MB; expandable Gemstar format with Smart Media cards

Macintosh (with converter)

recognition * Multi-function

RCA REB1100 Next generation of Rocket eBook Pro

7.1 in. by 5.0 in. by 0.8 in.

$299 Dials up Gemstar eBook catalog via internal telephone modem 33.6 Kbps modem). PC not required, but device can connect to a PC via provided USB cable $699 Built-in telephone and Ethernet modems connect to dialup Gemstar eBook catalog (does not connect to a PC)

* Touch screen * Customizable page orientation * Underlining * Bookmarking * Variable font size * Backlight * Built-in dictionary * Online personal bookshelf

RCA REB1200 Next generation of the SoftBook Reader

9 in. by 7.5 in. by 1.25 in.

2.1 lbs

6-12 hours 32,768 colors, 8.2 in. diagonal, 480 x 640 pixels (VGA), 97.3 dots per inch

8 MB, .SB, a expandable proprietary to 128 MB Gemstar format using Compact Flash cards

* Built-in dictionary * Word search * Touch screen * Underlining * Bookmarking * Annotation * Adjustable font size * Adjustable backlight * Adjustable page layout * Icon to personal library * Menu icon for current book * Built-in dictionary * Annotation facility * Full-text search

Rocket eBook Pro

7.1 in. by 4.8 in. by 0.8 in.

1.3 lbs

Black and white, 20 to 45 3 in. by 4.5 in., hours 320 x 480 pixels, 108 dots per inch

16 MB

.RB, a proprietary Gemstar format

Connects to PC $269 or Mac via cradle and serial cable

101

* Underlining * Bookmarking * 2 buttons to turn pages * Backlight * On-screen keyboard * Handwriting recognition * Search facility SoftBook 2.9 lbs Black and white, 5 hours 20 x 15 cm. Expandable with additional memory card Built-in modem $599 * Leather bound * Software to create ebooks * Search * Bookmarking * Hyperlink * Text markup * Stylus

102 Other E-Readers 1. Seven Japanese Devices Capable of Displaying eBooks (Sanders & Sanders, 2000) Sony Vaio InfoCarry reading device Palm Pilot Sharp Zaurus PDA Casio PDA Handheld WinCE Unknown device - appears to be dedicated reading device Consortium eBook (dedicated, see table)

2. Korean E-Reader Roush (2000b) reports on new e-reading devices, among which is a Korean ereader being developed by Korea eBook Inc. The Korean e-reader is very light, has a black-and-white LCD touch screen, with a full 480 x 320 pixels. It has a silver case with big buttons for paging forward and backward. It will use a PC-based Korean-language eBook reading program (the Hiebook Reader) and it will have a tool for converting XML content for the reader. The device will be multi-function (will play MP3 music and perform standard PDA functions) (Roush, 2000b). Note: An alliance between eBookAd.com and Korea eBook Inc. to launch the hardware device in North America was announced Feb. 27 (http://www.eBookAd.com). The features of the planned e-reader appear in the comparative table above (See Hiebook).

103 New Developments The following developments will probably affect the application of new technologies to e-readers and e-books in the future. What follows is a summary of some of the salient research and development in the field. Electronic Ink, or E-Ink A team at the MIT Media Lab is working on an innovative display technology. This works on an ultra-thin flexible surface that is connected to the Internet, and the content is printed on it using electronic ink that can be updated remotely. Its character resolution approximates the quality of documents printed on paper. This electronic ink is made of a colored liquid containing microcapsules made up of a transparent envelope filled with a blue liquid, and microscopic particles of white pigments that are positively charged. Controlled by electrodes, the association of several microcapsules creates the characters. Similar to Gyricon (See Electronic Paper below), this technology is based on millions of beads. Unlike Gyricon, the beads reside in a liquid ink that can be applied to almost any surface. The companies (E-Ink and Lucent) involved in this new development estimate that commercial displays using printed plastic transistors and electronic ink could be available within five years and would be able to deliver improved look, portability, flexibility and low cost to handheld displays, as well as very large graphical displays (Roush, 2000a). In spite of the above estimation of five years, the Seybold Bulletin (2001) reports that digital ink may reach the market in 2002 as a result of an investment in E-Ink from

104 Philips. The two companies announced they would jointly develop high-resolution electronic ink displays and claim that this can deliver a lighter and more readable display. Electronic Paper Xerox has designed a digital document display technology called Gyricon (http://www.parc.xerox.com/dhl/projects/gyricon/), which is similar to electronic ink. A Gyricon page is a clear thin silicon rubber sheet containing thousands of tiny half-black half-white balls. Each ball floats in its own pocket of oil and is able to rotate and respond to an electrical field. When an electrical charge comes near the balls, the black half is either attracted or repelled, showing the white or black hemisphere on the surface of the display. All of these dots together make images and characters. E-paper is like paper in many ways: it stores texts and images, it is viewed in reflective light (rather than backlight) and as a result is legible at a greater angle and in brighter light than ereader or computer monitors, it is flexible, and quite inexpensive. In addition, it can be reused thousands of times. It is a bit thicker than ordinary paper. The first researcher to come up with the idea of electronic paper was Nick Sheridon, as far back as 1975 (Jenkins, 2001). IBM Electronic Newspaper IBM has designed an electronic newspaper that takes into account the practices of newspaper readers: how they read, unfold, and carry the newspaper. This prototype electronic newspaper looks like a large book. It is thin and light, has a flexible cover, and a metal spine. It contains 16 pages of fiberglass-reinforced paper. This material is

105 resistant, readable, and feels natural. The user connects his newspaper to the Web and the newspaper articles (text and photos) are downloaded and printed on the newspaper using electronic ink (News: IBM unveils electronic newspaper, 1999). Digital Comic Books At the recent International Book Fair in Tokyo, Toshiba, NTT Data, and E-Book Initiative Japan presented an e-book prototype that has two attached LCD panels and was especially developed for reading comic books (for which two pages are important). They expect the e-reader to be ready for release in about two years, once the weight has been brought down and the battery made to last longer (Miyake, 2001). E-Readers for the Disabled E-books can fill special reading needs of the physically challenged or sightimpaired. A simple font size change turns the e-book into a large print edition. Some file formats are compatible with screen reading technology (Engle, 2000). Scalable Font Sizes Some eBook formats are suited for reading by the vision impaired. Scalable font sizes work better on a format that allows reformatting of the books (e.g., .rb) rather than just magnification (e.g., .pdf). The Braille Reader A Braille Reader is being developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (http://www.nist.gov/itl/div895/isis/projects/Braille/). The Braille Reader translates OEB standard text (from an electronic book reader, a PDA, or a

106 desktop computer) to Braille output. The NIST Rotating-Wheel Based Braille display (RWB) allows users access to electronic books, documents, e-mail, and Web pages. The goal of this reader is to provide users with a functionality similar to that of a conventional Braille display, but with less cost and better reliability. In order to read Braille text, users usually slide one or several fingertips across a line of Braille. In a short-line Braille display, the user must move the reading finger back and forth rapidly to obtain a reasonable reading rate. In the NIST device, the Braille text moves under a motionless finger. A key point of user control is the rotation rate of the wheel, which controls the rate of presentation of Braille text. Among the functions provided by the reader are line forward, line back, paragraph forward, paragraph back, pause, bookmark, and annotation. Computer Generated Voice Software This is already available on standard operating systems. It will soon be possible to include this technology in dedicated e-readers as well.

107

Appendix B - Web Survey Questionnaire

Survey Questionnaire for Users of Dedicated E-Readers If you own an e-reading device, please fill out this questionnaire. Thank you very much for your cooperation! Miriam Schcolnik 1. Your age 2. Gender Female Male 3. Your occupation Business person Computer related work Educator Engineer Lawyer Librarian Publisher Writer Other (please specify) 4. Your native language 5. The language(s) you e-read in English French German Italian Japanese Korean Spanish Other 6. Education completed High school Associate Degree BA MA PhD 7. How many days a week do you use a computer? 8. What e-reader do you own? Rocket eBook

108 Softbook Palm Pilot REB 1100 REB 1200 Franklin EBookman Other (please specify) 9. How long have you used an e-reader? 10. Has the e-reader replaced computer reading? All Some None 11. Has the e-reader replaced print reading? All Some None 12. How many times a month do you use your e-reader? 13. How long do you normally e-read at a time? hour(s) months.

Todays e-readers allow people to read professional articles, novels, and many other types of texts. The following questions address your use and preferences concerning the different types. 14 a. Do you e-read for information (e.g., professional/technical articles)? Yes No
(Note: if they answer no, they skip the next question)

14 b. When you e-read for information, how often do you use the following strategies?
(Note: Each one of the items had a pull down menu with five options: Very often, Often, Sometimes, Hardly ever, Never)

Annotate Consult previously marked/underlined sections Cross reference with other digital materials on the e-reader Cross reference with materials on other media Look back at previous page(s) Look up words in the online dictionary Page (forward or backward) Search by using the Find feature Set bookmarks Skip around by going to specific pages or bookmarks Take notes/outline on paper Underline/highlight Use hyperlinks Use list of references Use the Table of Contents to get to specific sections Other (please specify)

109 15 a. Do you e-read for pleasure (e.g., novels)? Yes

they skip the next question)

No (Note: if they answer no,

15 b. When you e-read for pleasure, how often do you use the following strategies?
(Note: Each one of the items had a pull down menu with five options: Very often, Often, Sometimes, Hardly ever, Never)

Annotate Consult previously marked/underlined sections Cross-reference with other digital materials on the e-reader Cross-reference with printed materials Look back at previous page(s) Look up words in the online dictionary Page (forward or backward) Search by using the Find feature Set bookmarks Skip around by going to specific pages or bookmarks Take notes/outline on paper Underline/highlight Use hyperlinks Use list of references Use the Table of Contents to get to specific sections Other (please specify) 16. Where do you read the following text types? (Check ALL that apply.) E-reader biographies business documents journal articles manuals and how to books manuscripts for editing newspaper/magazine articles novels poems proposals reference materials religious books reports short stories textbooks travel guides Other Computer Print screen Dont read

110 17. What medium do you prefer using for each text type? (Choose ONE medium for each) E-reader biographies business documents journal articles manuals and how to books manuscripts for editing newspaper/magazine articles novels poems proposals reference materials religious books reports short stories textbooks travel guides other 18. What modes do you prefer for e-reading? [] Portrait layout or [] landscape layout [] Paging or [] scrolling 19 What characteristics should e-texts ideally have? (Mark ALL relevant characteristics.) Their paragraphs should have topic sentences. They should be short. They should have a table of contents or outline. They should have an abstract or summary. They should have headings and subheadings. They should have highlighted/bolded words. They should have hyperlinks. They should have illustrations and graphics. They should have page numbers. They should have two columns. 20. Please indicate your opinion about the following statements.
(Note: each statement had a pull down menu with five options: Totally agree, Agree, Disagree, Totally disagree, No opinion)

Computer Print screen

I never read this type of text

An important problem is you can see very little text on the screen. I prefer reading from print than on my dedicated e-reader.

111 I prefer reading on my dedicated e-reader than from my desktop computer. My e-reader is comfortable to hold. My e-readers resolution is good. My e-readers weight is OK. Reading with the e-reader is effective. Reading with the e-reader is efficient. The e-reader causes disorientation (I dont know where I am in the text). The e-reader conveys the feeling of security because it is a contained environment. The e-reader makes me lose the context of what I read. The text on my screen is satisfactorily legible. With my e-reader I cannot deep read. With my e-reader I cannot skim. 21. Which e-reader features do you consider important? (Note: each one had a pull
down menu with 3 choices: Very important, Important, Unimportant)

Adjustable backlight Ample storage capacity Compatibility with standards/other systems Control over display layout (portrait or landscape) Ease of use Easy navigation Legibility Light weight Long battery life Longevity (no need for frequent hardware upgrades) Network connection to interface with library databases Portability Possibility of adjusting font size Possibility of annotating Possibility of bookmarking Possibility of changing font type Possibility of entering own content Possibility of following hyperlinks Possibility of highlighting/underlining Possibility of paging Possibility of printing Possibility of searching for specific content Reasonable screen size Short delay for opening a document Short delay for turning a page Small size Two display surfaces Visual fidelity (look like printed page) 22. Which of the following reading purposes/functions could you accomplish with a dedicated e-reader? (Mark ALL relevant purposes.)

112 Reading for: Careful preparation (e.g., for presentation, exam) Cross-reference Discussion aid Editing/proofreading Entertainment/enjoyment/pleasure Information search Inspiration and ideas Listening aid Mental escape Prayer Research Review Skimming to get a general idea Staying informed Study

113

Appendix C - Cover Letter

The following letter was sent to the e-Book List. The letter was also accessible through a link from the questionnaire, so someone coming to the site without having read it could see what the questionnaire was all about. Dear dedicated e-reader user, The first commercially available e-readers were released only a couple of years ago, but there are new developments in the field all the time. One of the interesting questions that emerge is whether we read differently in the new medium, and if so, how. There are already a number of scholarly reports and papers on electronic reading, focusing mainly on research for the purpose of interface design, market research, or the implications of the use of these devices for libraries and library users. The present study will focus on the process of reading with dedicated e-reading devices and will hopefully shed light on the use of a new medium for implementing an old skill. If you own an e-reader, I would greatly appreciate it if you would complete my survey questionnaire. The web survey is part of my PhD research, and the topic is Reading with Dedicated E-Readers. My study investigates users habits and strategies as well as their preferences and problems while reading with dedicated e-readers. It will also attempt to characterize ideal texts for reading on these devices. I can assure you complete confidentiality and anonymity, and I ask for no identifying information on the questionnaire form. The study has been approved by the Research with Human Subjects review committee of my university, Nova Southeastern University.

114 The web survey will be posted for a period of one month, from Jan. 28 to Feb. 28. If you can spare some time, please answer all the questions. Your answers will greatly contribute to our knowledge about e-reading, what is read, how often, and most importantly, how it is read! Once my study is complete, I will be glad to share the results with anyone interested. I would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Miriam Schcolnik Doctoral candidate Nova Southeastern University smiriam@post.tau.ac.il The web survey can be found at: http://www.scis.nova.edu/~scholnik/EreaderQuestionnaire.html

115

Appendix D - IRB Permission

The following is a copy of the e-mail received from the IRB Representative at SCIS: I have reviewed your IRB submission form dated December 14, 2000 and found that your dissertation research titled "A Study of Reading with Dedicated E-Readers" meets the eligibility for EXEMPT status under the guidelines of the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB). Please keep in mind that EXEMPT does not mean that the research is exempt from review. It means the research proposal does not need to go before the IRB for a full review. Research classified as EXEMPT is primarily granted in cases where the: "Research using survey procedures or interview procedures where subjects' identities are thoroughly protected and their answers do not subject them criminal and civil liability. Your research study will be logged and recorded as "Human Subjects Research" under SCIS. As your dissertation proposal/implementation gets closer to its final form be aware that you must keep me advised of any modifications to the protocol or to the instruments used for data collection. In the event such changes occur, please inform me of the changes and send revised copies of the instruments to me ASAP. Good luck on your research. Paul A. Rendulic, Ed.D. IRB Representative School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University (954) 262-2020

116

Appendix E Observation Protocol

Name: __________________ Date: _________________ Time: ________________ Time spent e-reading in session: ______________ Moves Annotate Consult previously marked sections Look back at previous page(s) Look up words in online dictionary Page forward Page backward Search by using Find Set bookmarks Skip around by going to specific pages or bookmarks Take notes on paper Underline Use hyperlinks Use list of references Use the Table of Contents Tally Observations

117 What layout was chosen: portrait or landscape? Think-aloud comments:

Other observations:

118

Appendix F Interview Questions

Name Occupation Education completed How many days a week do you use a computer? Did reading with the electronic device affect the way you read? How? Was the experience a unique reading experience? Is there anything you did differently than you would have if youd been reading on paper? Were you comfortable reading with the e-reader? Did you feel you could see too little text on the screen? Was the e-reader comfortable to hold? Did you feel the e-readers resolution was good? Did you feel the e-readers weight was OK? Did the e-reader cause you disorientation? Did the e-reader convey the feeling of security, of a contained environment? Did the e-reader make you lose the context of what you were reading? Did you feel you had trouble deep reading? Did you feel you had trouble skimming? Did the characteristics of the electronic device help you or bother you? Explain: Do you think you might prefer this kind of reading over reading off your desktop computer? If so, in what circumstances? Which e-reader features are important? Age Native language

119 [] Adjustable backlight [] Ample storage capacity [] Compatibility with standards/other systems [] Control over display layout (portrait or landscape) [] Ease of use [] Easy navigation [] Legibility [] Light weight [] Long battery life [] Longevity (no need for frequent hardware upgrades) [] Network connection to interface with library databases [] Portability [] Possibility of adjusting font size [] Possibility of annotating [] Possibility of bookmarking [] Possibility of changing font type [] Possibility of entering own content [] Possibility of following hyperlinks [] Possibility of underlining [] Possibility of paging [] Possibility of printing [] Possibility of searching for specific content [] Reasonable screen size [] Short delay for opening a document [] Short delay for turning a page [] Small size [] Two display surfaces [] Visual fidelity (look like printed page) Do you think you could adopt an e-reading device? If so, what would you adopt it for? Reading for: [] Careful preparation (e.g., for presentation, exam) [] Cross-reference [] Discussion aid [] Editing/proofreading [] Entertainment/enjoyment/pleasure [] Information search [] Inspiration and ideas [] Listening aid [] Mental escape [] Prayer [] Research [] Review [] Skimming to get a general idea [] Staying informed

120 [] Study Was the format of the texts you read satisfactory? If not, what were they missing, or what would you have wanted? [] Paragraphs with topic sentences. [] Short length. [] A table of contents or outline. [] An abstract or summary. [] Headings and subheadings. [] Highlighted/bolded words. [] Hyperlinks. [] Illustrations and graphics. [] Page numbers. [] Two columns.

121

Appendix G Letters of Request

To the e-Book List Administrator Jon Noring noring@olagrande.net Dear Mr. Noring, I am conducting doctoral research at Nova Southeastern University. The topic of my research is Reading with Dedicated E-Readers (an old skill in a new medium!). One of my instruments consists of a web survey, in which I will try to find out how users of ereaders read, what strategies they employ, what types of texts they prefer reading on their e-readers, and what features of the device they particularly like or dislike. In order to reach as many e-reader users as I can, I would like to announce the survey on the ebook list, and other similar lists. I would include in my cover letter a link to the questionnaire, so those willing to answer can click and go there directly, and those not interested can just ignore my request. I would like to request your permission to post the cover letter announcing the survey on the list. Looking forward to your reply, Miriam Schcolnik smiriam@post.tau.ac.il *** To the eBook Net Editor I am conducting doctoral research at Nova Southeastern University. The topic of my research is Reading with Dedicated E-Readers (an old skill in a new medium!). One of my instruments consists of a web survey, in which I will try to find out how users of ereaders read, what strategies they employ, what types of texts they prefer reading on their e-readers, and what features of the device they particularly like or dislike. In order to reach as many e-reader users as I can, I would like to announce the survey on a couple of ebook lists. In addition, I would like to request your permission to post the survey announcement on the eBook Net site. Since I am not aware of any e-reader users in my country, Israel, this announcement would enable me to reach users in other countries. The announcement could have a link to the questionnaire, so those willing to answer can click and go there directly, and those not interested can just ignore the announcement. I would very much appreciate this opportunity, Looking forward to your reply, Miriam Schcolnik *** Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 To: the Librarians EBook Newsletter Editor

122 Susan Gibbons <sgibbons@rochester.lib.ny.us> Dear Ms. Gibbons, I am conducting doctoral research at Nova Southeastern University. The topic of my research is Reading with Dedicated E-Readers (an old skill in a new medium!). One of my instruments consists of a web survey, in which I will try to find out how users of ereaders read, what strategies they employ, what types of texts they prefer reading on their e-readers, and what features of the device they particularly like or dislike. In order to reach as many e-reader users as I can, I would like to announce the survey on ebook lists, and other sites where e-reader users can see the announcement. The findings of my research may prove of interest to librarians, since the success of e-readers in libraries will be affected, among other factors, by users' practices, preferences and difficulties. I would like to request your permission to post an announcement of the survey (with a link to the questionnaire) on your newsletter. Looking forward to your reply, Miriam Schcolnik smiriam@post.tau.ac.il ***

123

Appendix H Announcements
1. Excerpted from the Digital Worm Newsletter: Subject: Digital Worm Newsletter - eBook-List Archive Now Available Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:55:10 +1100 From: "Richard Crocker" <newsletteradmin@digitalworm.com> Reply-To: "Richard Crocker" <editor@digitalworm.com> Organization: BinaryThing.com To: <editor@digitalworm.com> __________________________________________________________________ eBook News from Digital Worm http://www.digitalworm.com __________________________________________________________________ Online survey calls for eBook device users A recent post on the eBook-List by Miriam Schcolnik called for eBook device users to participate in a Web survey as part of a PhD study. The survey is for any readers using devices such as Rocket eBook, iPaq, Jornada 545 & 548, REB 1100 & 1200, eBookMan, Softbook and Palm to read electronic content. http://www.digitalworm.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=102 *** 2. Excerpted from eBook Net News: Subject: eBookNet Weekly News.2001.02.02 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:41:50 -0800 (PST) From: news@ebooknet.com To: (eBookNet Subscriber) eBOOKNET WEEKLY NEWS - February 2, 2001 Building the eBook Community http://www.ebooknet.com/ Volume 3, Issue 5 ----------------------------------------------------CONTENTS: eBookNet Headlines - Microsoft Wins New Yorker eBook Titles, Looks to Future Devices

124 - IBM, Book Industry Study Group Explore Lessons from Music Industry for eBooks - A Writer Who Can Market, AND a Marketer Who Can Write eBookNet Happenings - A Guide to 2001 eBook Events & Conferences - A Call for New Columnists and Community Hosts - eBookNet to Go: Add the Latest eBook News to Your Web Site - A Free eBook Collection: 'The Top 25 eBookNet Stories of 2000' eBookNet Voices - Angels & Demons Author Dan Brown Checks In After a Hiatus - A Beginner's E-Guide to the World of Photography - A New Directory of Independent eBook Publishers - Frustrated with His REB1100 eBookNet People - Miriam Schcolnik -- A Canadian Grad Student Studying eBooks Invites You to Respond to Her Questionnaire ---------------------------------------------------eBOOKNET PEOPLE Miriam Schcolnik -- A Grad Student Studying eBooks Invites You to Respond to Her Questionnaire Miriam, a doctoral student in Computer Science at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, recently asked us to share the following appeal with the eBookNet community: "Dear dedicated e-reader user, "The first commercially available e-readers were released only a couple of years ago, but there are new developments in the field all the time. One of the interesting questions that emerge is whether we read differently in the new medium, and if so, how. There are already a number of scholarly reports and papers on electronic reading, focusing mainly on research for the purpose of interface design, market research, or the implications of the use of these devices for libraries and library users. The present study will focus on the process of reading with dedicated e-reading devices and will hopefully shed light on the use of a 'new medium' for implementing an 'old skill.' "If you own an e-reader, I would greatly appreciate it if you would complete my survey questionnaire at http://www.scis.nova.edu/~scholnik/Questionnaire.html. The web survey is part of my PhD research, and the topic is Reading with Dedicated EReaders. My study investigates users' habits and strategies as well as their preferences and problems while reading with dedicated e-readers. It will also attempt to characterize 'ideal texts' for reading on these devices. I can assure you complete confidentiality and anonymity, and I ask for no identifying information on the questionnaire form. The

125 study has been approved by the 'Research with Human Subjects' review committee of my university, Nova Southeastern University. "The web survey will be posted for a period of one month, from Jan. 28 to Feb. 28. If you can spare some time, please answer all the questions. Your answers will greatly contribute to our knowledge about e-reading, what is read, how often, and most importantly, how it is read! Once my study is complete, I will be glad to share the results with anyone interested. "I would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation." Miriam Schcolnik Doctoral candidate - Nova Southeastern University smiriam@post.tau.ac.il Once more, Miriam's questionnaire is at: http://www.scis.nova.edu/~scholnik/Questionnaire.html *** 3. Excerpted from Papyrus News: Subject: [pn] E-Reader Survey Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:52:26 -0800 From: Mark Warschauer <markw@UCI.EDU> To: papyrus-news@UCI.EDU ******************************************************************* Below is information on an e-reader survey, from Miriam Schcolnik. Dear dedicated e-reader user, The first commercially available e-readers were released only a couple of years ago, but there are new developments in the field all the time. One of the interesting questions that emerge is whether we read ***

126 4. From Librarians EBook Newsletter:

127 5. Excerpted from Digital Worm:

*** 6. Excerpted from eBook Broadcast Bulletin: Note: In order to take advantage of this reminder and hoping that some more respondents would fill out the questionnaire, the questionnaire was left on line until March 5th. Subject: eBook Broadcast Bulletin, Issue #10 Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:39:54 -0800 From: Eva Almeida <admin@ebooksnbytes.com> To: ebroadcast@topica.com ___________________________________________________________ ~eBOOK BROADCAST BULLETIN~ "eBook, Epublishing, and Handhelds Press Releases" Issue #10 http://www.ebookbroadcast.com March 3rd, 2001

128 Eva Almeida, Bsc(Pharm), Editor, admin@ebooksnbytes.com ___________________________________________________________ By subscription only! You are receiving this newsletter because you requested a subscription. Unsubscribe instructions are near the end of this newsletter. ___________________________________________________________ EDITOR'SNOTE-Welcome! ----------------------------------------------------------Welcome to this week's issue of eBook Broadcast Bulletin! I had a special request from a university student doing research for her Ph.D. -- it would be great if you could help answer her survey that she mentions below my editorial. I hope I haven't missed any releases that have been submitted to me -- my 2 year-old son has a serious stomach flu at the moment (so my mind has been elsewhere.) If you have your own press release you would like to submit, feel free to submit it at: http://www.ebookbroadcast.com/submit.html If you would like to send us news to report in this newsletter, feel free to email me at: mailto:admin@ebooksnbytes.com?subject=ebooknews All the best! Eva Almeida, Bsc(Pharm) mailto:admin@ebooksnbytes.com Editor/Publisher of the eBook Broadcast Bulletin Publisher of the eBooks N' Bytes Informer for eBook publishing and promotion tips at http://www.ebooksnbytes.com/informer/ Subscribe: mailto:ebooksnbytessubscribe@topica.com WZ-ard for e-Book Author Resources: http://wz.com/arts/ResourcesforeBookAuthors.html --------------- SPECIAL REQUEST: ---------------Dear dedicated e-reader user, The first commercially available e-readers were released only a couple of years ago, but there are new developments in the field all the time. One of the interesting questions that emerge is whether we read differently in the new medium, and if so, how. ***

129

Appendix I Interview Data

Table 11. Interview Results
Subject Age Occupation M 30 Content manager in an educational materials publisher English BA and Teaching Certificate 7 T 60 Teacher trainer O 31 Project manager in educational software company Hebrew BA 5 D 31 Architect S 23 Software quality tester

Native language Education Days a week of computer use Did reading with the electronic device affect the way you read? How?

Hebrew MA 7

Spanish BA 5 or 6

Hebrew High school 6

At the beginning I found it hard to concentrate. I had to go back. I felt the glare was a bit irritating to the eye. I quite enjoyed the paging, just having to push a button.

It affected it just because I was experimentin g with the new device.

No.

Yes, I used the dictionary and played with the settings. These actions interrupted my reading. The reading otherwise was the same, I paged forward, etc. Im not sure. I dont think there was a significant difference from reading from a paper book.

Was the experience a unique reading experience?

I had to switch position and put the device down, because I found it heavy.

I feel I have more choice from a paper magazine than from the magazine on the e-reader. I can do some sampling and decide myself what I want to

No.

Yes. I did things that I wouldnt have bothered with, such as looking up words in the dictionary. It was simple, so I did it. However, when I went back to look for something, I had trouble finding the place where I was before. If it had been a regular book, I would have kept a finger in place as a bookmark No.

130
read. Here its more difficult. Yes.

Were you comfortable reading with the ereader? Did you feel you could see too little text on the screen?

Yes, except when putting it down. Actually I liked that, and the fact I had fewer words on the screen.

Yes.

Yes, very.

Yes.

Yes, what bothered me is the size of the page and the little text I had on each page.

No.

Maybe. I like full pages. Thats why I picked small fonts.

Was the ereader comfortable to hold? Was the ereaders resolution good? Was the ereaders weight OK?

Yes, but heavy. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Maybe it was a bit too small. Yes.

Not for the type of book I was reading. For a manual I would have wanted more information on a page, so I could skip around. In technical materials you dont read linearly. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Heavier than a regular book.

Did the ereader cause disorientatio n?

Yes. I lost my place accidentally and had trouble finding it again. In a book its easier.

At first I felt it was heavy. After that I was comfortable holding it. No.

It was a little heavy.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No, I looked occasionally at the scrollbar to see where I was.

Did the ereader convey the feeling of security, of

Certainly more comfortable than the Internet.

Yes, but the same is true for me on the Internet. I like choices,

Yes.

Yes, very much like the book.

A little. Even though there is a scrollbar, when you touch it, it opens a window giving you a choice to go to that page (with number indicated) or stay where you are. But the book has no page numbers! I guess I could get used to it after a while. I feel OK on the web too, but yes, I guess this is cozier. I could lie in bed and read

131
a contained environment ? so it doesnt bother me that on CNN, for example, I have lots of choices. I want to be the one to decide. No. from it.

Did the ereader make you lose the context of what you were reading?

I found it hard to concentrate, but that may have been because I knew I was being watched, and it wasnt my natural environment.

Yes, but Im not sure why, whether it was because I felt I was being observed, because I wasnt concentrating , or because of the device itself.

No.

No, but thats the reason I chose a small font. With a large font its easier to read, but there is not enough text on the screen, and there I could easily lose context. No.

Did you have trouble deep reading?

No, maybe it was a little harder than with a regular book.

No.

Did you have trouble skimming? Did the characteristi cs of the electronic device help you or bother you? Explain:

No.

N/A

N/A

A bit, because I had new options, such as the dictionary. I guess the online dictionary has advantages and disadvantage s. On the one hand I liked it, on the other it interrupted the flow of reading. N/A

Actually it helped me. It has a nice size, and I liked the big fonts.

They helped me. I particularly enjoyed the dictionary. I would never get up from my chair just to get a dictionary. I would just

They helped, for example the dictionary.

Helped.

No. I did some skimming at the beginning, and had no problem. They helped. While reading I felt it was nice not to have to turn pages. I could change position easily, too.

132
skip the unknown word. Now I can look it up. I also liked the rotation, but I still dont know. Do the buttons adapt to your rotation? Yes, because its portable. When traveling, for example.

Do you think you might prefer this kind of reading over reading off your desktop computer? In what circumstanc es?

Yes, I can sit in any position I like, and I can lie down.

For documents related to work to take outside the office, I would. It is nicer than taking a laptop. For pleasure, Im not sure yet.

For pleasure definitely, because I can sit comfortably or lie down.

It depends. For technical documents or if I need graphs, I would prefer the computer, because I like to work with many open windows. I guess if I wanted to use an e-reader for technical stuff I should have one with a larger screen. In reading a novel, like this, I would prefer this to the computer.

Important features: Adjustable backlight Ample storage capacity Compatibilit y with standards/ other systems

I would just care about my own system, but it would upset me if I couldnt find the book I wanted in the right format for my reader. Looking for the right format might also be unnecessarily time

133
consuming. The Rocket is easy.

Control over display layout Ease of use

Here again it would depend on what Im reading. If you are reading for pleasure, a complicated interface can spoil the fun of reading. Of course light is a relative notion, it depends on what you compare it to, and what seems light to one person may seem heavy to someone else. Very. I think its important, but probably not practical. However, ereaders should be forward as well as backward compatible. Maybe. It would depend on what Im reading.

Easy navigation Legibility Light weight

Long battery life Longevity

Network connection Portability Adjusting font size Annotating

I would use the e-reader mainly for pleasure, and therefore this is not important for me.

Bookmarkin g Changing font type Entering own content

Yes, that would be

Not for me, because I

134
very important No, that would beat its purpose!! dont need to write a lot. It would depend on what Im reading. Not terribly important. For pleasure I wouldnt want a much larger screen. For technical manuals, I would. Not terribly important if youre reading a book for pleasure. You open it once and thats it. However, in documents, if you have to open and close several documents, it becomes important. I guess 2 seconds would be reasonable. Very

Following hyperlinks Underlining Paging Printing

Searching for specific content Reasonable screen size

I prefer bigger screens.

Short delay for opening a document

Short delay for turning a page Small size

I probably wouldnt carry it around in my purse. On trips, maybe.

Two display surfaces

For a book or textbook there is no need. You read linearly and go from page to page. For articles and manuals it is important.

135
Visual fidelity Probably. No, its a digital medium, it shouldnt imitate the printed page. It depends. If Im reading for pleasure, I guess it would matter. For documents I dont care.

Could you adopt an ereading device? What for? Reading for: Careful preparation Crossreference Discussion aid Editing/proo freading Entertainme nt/enjoymen t/pleasure Information search Inspiration and ideas Listening aid Mental escape Prayer Research Review Skimming to get a general idea Staying informed

Price would be a factor.

? This would be very good.

I think this may be a problem.

No, I prefer to take notes on paper. It seems like too much trouble. Id be happy to read an e-paper instead of a paper newspaper. I dont like newspapers format and dont like holding a paper. It depends on the

Study

136
subject. History I guess I could. Math no. Yes, it was.

Was the format of the texts you read satisfactory? What would you have wanted?

I think that the same characteristic s that I have with texts on my computer should exist here. Page numbers? Yes, I missed them. Columns? No. ? I guess in expository texts

Paragraphs with topic sentences Short length A table of contents or outline An abstract or summary Headings and subheadings

In an article it would be important.

But not for a novel; more so for a scientific book

But Id like to be able to hide them, because the screen isnt large, and they take up space. Here again, it would depend on the kind of text. I guess thats why I wouldnt read technical stuff on this ereader. The illustrations here dont look so good. Definitely!

Highlighted/ bolded words Hyperlinks Illustrations and graphics

Page numbers

This would give me a better idea of where I am in the text

In fact I looked for them in the book.

Two columns

137

Reference List
Adler, A., Gujar, A., Harrison, B. L., O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1998). A Diary Study of Work-Related Reading: Design Implications for Digital Reading Devices. Paper presented at the CHI 98, Los Angeles, CA. Askwall, S. (1985). Computer supported reading vs. reading text from paper: A comparison of two reading situations. Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 425439. Barnard, S. B. (1999). Libraries and e-Books: Opportunities and Issues. Kent State University. Available: www.jmc.kent.edu/futureprint/1999spring/barnard.htm Retrieved: Nov. 11, 1999. Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age (Paper-cover ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. Bishop, A. P. (1998). Measuring access, use, and success in digital libraries. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 4(2). Bishop, A. P. (1999). Document structure and digital libraries: How researchers mobilize information in journal articles. Information Processing & Management, 35, 255-279. Bolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In D. Reinking & M. C. McKenna & L. D. Labbo & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post-Typographic World (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984, reprinted in 1994). Instructing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In R. B. Ruddell & M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 757-787). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Burbules, N. C. (1998). Rhetorics of the Web: Hyperreading and critical literacy. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to Screen: Taking Literacy Into The Electronic Era (pp. 102122). London and New York: Routledge. Davidson, K. T., Shields, M. A., & Biscos, G. (1997). Network, Screen and Page: The Future of Reading in a Digital Age: INTERQUEST and the University of Virginia.

138 de Bruijn, D., de Mul, S., & van Oostendorp, H. (1992). The influence of screen size and text layout on the study of text. Behaviour & Information Technology, 11(2), 71-78. Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326. Dillon, A. (1996). TIMS: A framework for the design of usable electronic text. In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Vol. LVIII, pp. 99-120). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Dillon, A., & McKnight, C. (1990). Towards a classification of text types: A repertory grid approach. International Journal Man-Machine Studies, 33, 623636. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (1998). Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.). Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall Europe. Douglas, J. Y., & Hargadon, A. (2000). The Pleasure Principle: Immersion, Engagement, Flow. Paper presented at the Hypertext 2000, San Antonio, Texas. Engle, J. (2000). Readers E-Book Primer. Garland, Texas: eBC Press, Inc. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography (2nd ed. Vol. 17). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Feuerstein, T., & Schcolnik, M. (1995). Enhancing Reading Comprehension in the Language Learning Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Alta Book Center, Publishers. Fidler, R. (1998). Electronic Books: A Good Idea Waiting for the Right Technology. Kent State University. Available: www.jmc.kent.edu/futureprint/1998fall/fidler.htm. Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1988). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed. Vol. I). Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications Ltd. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Gibbons, S. (2000). Lessons Learned from Electronic Book 2000 Conference (Vol 1 Issue 1). Bi-Monthly Publication of the Electronic Book Evaluation Project, Rochester NY. Available: http://www.rrlc.org/ebook/newsletter1/newsletter.htm. Retrieved: January 7, 2001.

139 Gibbs, N. J. (1999-2000). E-Books: Report on an ongoing experiment. Against the Grain, 11(6), 23-25. Gillingham, M. G. (1996). Comprehending electronic text. In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Vol. LVIII, pp. 77-98). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Gilreath, C. T. (1993). Graphic cueing of text: The typographic and diagraphic dimensions. Visible Language, 27(3), 336-361. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital Literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135. Goodman, K. S. (1994). Reading, writing, and written texts: A transactional sociopsycholinguistic view. In R. B. Ruddell & M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed., pp. 1093-1130). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N., & Minuto, S. (1987). Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a single variable explanation. Human Factors, 29, 269-299. Grabinger, R. S., & Osman-Jouchoux, R. (1996). Designing screens for learning. In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Vol. LVIII, pp. 181-212). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Greaney, V., & Neuman, S. B. (1990). The functions of reading: A cross-cultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 172-195. Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (1998). Reflections on computers and composition studies at the century's end. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era (pp. 3-19). London and New York: Routledge. Henke, H. (1998). Are Electrons Better than Papyrus? or Can Adobe Acrobat Reader Files Replace Hardcopy? Paper presented at the 16th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, Quebec, Canada. Heppner, F. H., Anderson, J. G. T., Farstrup, A. E., & Weiderman, N. H. (1985). Reading performance on a standardized test is better from print than from computer display. Journal of Reading(January), 321-325. Hill, B. (2001a, March 28). The eBook Revolution is Here Now. Message to eBook List.

140

Hill, B. (2001b). The Magic of Reading. Microsoft Corporation. Available: http://slate.msn.com/ebooks/00-09-26/ebooks.as. Retrieved: March, 2001. Jenkins, H. (2001). Electronic paper turns the page. Technology Review, March. Kilgour, F. G. (1998). The electronic book, The Evolution of the Book (pp. 151-160). New York: Oxford University Press. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394. Kol, S., & Schcolnik, M. (1997). Reading from screen vs. reading from paper: A pilot study. CAELL Journal, 8(1), 10-14. Kol, S., & Schcolnik, M. (2000). Enhancing screen reading strategies. Calico Journal, 18(1), 67-80. Landoni, M., Wilson, R., & Gibb, F. (2000). From the visual book to the web book: The importance of design. The Electronic Library, 18(6). Landow, G. P. (1996). Twenty minutes into the future, or how are we moving beyond the book? In G. Nunberg (Ed.), The Future of the Book (pp. 209-238). Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Ledford, D. (1999). Explaining the Obsolescence of E-Readers. Foreword Magazine. Available: http://www.forewordmagazine.com. Retrieved: Jan 3, 2001. Leu, D. J., Jr., & Reinking, D. (1996). Bringing insights from reading research to research on electronic learning environments. In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Vol. LVIII, pp. 43-76). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Levy, D. M. (1997). I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Reading and Attention in Digital Libraries. Paper presented at the DL '97, Philadelphia PA, USA. Levy, S. (2000, January 1). It's time to turn the last page. Newsweek, 96-98. Lewis, C., & Rieman, J. (1993, 1994). Task-Centered User Interface Design: A Practical Introduction. Available: ftp://ftp.cs.colorado.edu/pub/cs/cs/distribs/clewis/HCI-Design-Book/ Retrieved: 10.4.1999. Lorch, R. F., Jr. , Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students' conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 239-252.

141

Manguel, A. (1996). A History of Reading. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc. Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: From Paper Books to the Digital Library. Paper presented at the DL 97, Philadelphia PA. Marshall, C. C. (1998). The Future of Annotation in a Digital (Paper) World. Paper presented at the 35th Annual GSLIS Clinic: Successes and Failures of Digital Libraries, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Marshall, C. C., Price, M. N., Golovchinsky, G., & Schilit, B. N. (1999). Introducing a Digital Library Reading Appliance into a Reading Group. Paper presented at the Digital Libraries 99. Martindale, M. J. (1993). Mental models and text schemas: Why computer based tutorials should be considered a communication medium. Journal of ComputerBased Instruction, 20(4), 107-112. McCusker, D. (1998). The Design of the Rocket eBook. Available: http://www.zippublishing.com/abstracts/rocket_ebook_ergonomics.htm. Retrieved: December, 2000. McEneaney, J. E. (2000). Learning on the web: A content literacy perspective. Reading Online(January). McKnight, C. (1996). What makes a good hypertext? In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Vol. LVIII, pp. 213-238). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1990). A comparison of linear and hypertext formats in information retrieval. In R. McAleese & C. Green (Eds.), Hypertext: State of the Art (pp. 10-19). Oxford: Intellect. MediaMetrix. (2000). U.S. Baby Boomers and Seniors are Fastest Growing Internet Demographic Group. MediaMetrix Inc. Available: http://us.mediametrix.com/press/releases/20000404.jsp. Retrieved: March 28, 2001. Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(4), 329-358. Miyake, K. (2001). Comic Books Go Digital. CNN.com - Sci-Tech. Available: http://europe.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/04/23/digital.comics.idg/index.html. Retrieved: April 25, 2001.

142 Morkes, J., & Nielsen, J. (1997). Concise, Scannable, and Objective: How to Write for the Web. useit.com. Available: http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html. Retrieved: June 12, 2000. Murphy, E., Marquis, K., Hoffman, R., Saner, L., Tedesco, H., Harris, C., & RoskeHofstrand, R. (1999). Improving Electronic Data Collection and Dissemination Through Usability Testing. FCSM. Available: http://www.fcsm.gov/papers/emurphy.html. Retrieved: Jan 2, 2001. Muter, P. (1996). Interface design and optimization of reading of continuous text. In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Vol. LVIII, pp. 161-180). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp. Muter, P., Latremouille, S. A., Treurniet, W. C., & Beam, P. (1982). Extended reading of continuous text on television screens. Human Factors, 24, 501-508. Muter, P., & Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: The paperless office revisited? Behaviour and Information Technology, 10(4), 257-266. Mynatt, B. T., Leventhal, L. M., Instone, K., Farhat, J., & Rohlman, D. S. (1992). Hypertext or Book: Which is Better for Answering Questions? Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Monterey, California. Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a Book - The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. News: IBM Unveils Electronic Newspaper. (1999). IBM. Available: http://www5.ibm.com/uk/releases/99262.html. Retrieved: Jan 3, 2000. Nielsen, J. (1995). Multimedia and Hypertext. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, Inc. Nunberg, G. (1993). The places of books in the age of electronic reproduction. Representations, 0(42), 13-37. O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A Comparison of Reading Paper and On-Line Documents. Paper presented at the CHI 97, Atlanta GA. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In M. L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). White Plains, NY: Longman.

143 Piolat, A., Roussey, J. Y., & Thunin, O. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal Human-Computer Studies(47), 565589. Press, L. (2000). From p-books to e-books. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 1721. Reinking, D. (1992). Differences between electronic and printed texts: An agenda for research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 11-24. Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking & M. C. McKenna & L. D. Labbo & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post-Typographic World (pp. xi-xxx). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Reisel, J. F., & Shneiderman, B. (1987). Is bigger better? The effects of display size on program reading. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Social, Ergonomic and Stress Aspects of Work with Computers (pp. 113-122): Elsevier Science Publishers. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed., pp. 1057-1092). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, Inc. Roush, W. (2000a). Lucent, E Ink Demonstrate Flexible Electronic Paper. eBookNet. Available: http://www.ebooknet.com/story.jsp?id=169. Retrieved: January 8, 2001. Roush, W. (2000b). New eBook Devices, Encryption Debate Dominate NIST Conference. eBookNet. Available: http://www.ebooknet.com/story.jsp?id=371. Retrieved: January 4, 2001. Roush, W. (2001). Myfriend: The Perfect eBook Device? eBookNet. Available: http://www.ebooknet.com/story.jsp?id=5191. Retrieved: March 16, 2001. Roush, W., & Schaul, J. (2000). 3,500 Sound Off in Rocket eBook Survey. eBookNet. Available: http://www.ebooknet.com/story.jsp?id=3591. Retrieved: Oct. 10, 2000. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977, reprinted in 1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell & M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 864-894). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

144 Sanders, G., & Roush, W. (2000). eBook Hardware Buying Guide. eBookNet. Available: http://www.ebooknet.com/. Retrieved: January 2, 2001. Sanders, Y., & Sanders, G. (2000). eBooks in Japan: Part 1 of a Special Report. eBookNet. Available: http://www.ebooknet.com/story.jsp?id=2431. Retrieved: January 2, 2001. Schilit, B. (1999). Why e-Read? Finding Opportunities in the Merger of Paper and Computers. Kent State University. Available: www.jmc.kent.edu/futureprint/1999spring/schilit.htm. Retrieved: Nov 20, 1999. Schilit, B. N., Price, M. N., Golovchinsky, G., Tanaka, K., & Marshall, C. C. (1999). As we may read: The reading appliance revolution. Computer, 32(1), 65-73. Selvidge, P., & Phillips, C. (2000). E-Books: Are We Going Paperless? Software Usability Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Wichita State University. Available: http://www.surl.org. Retrieved: January 2, 2001. Severinson Eklundh, K., Fatton, A., & Romberger, S. (1996). The paper model for computer-based writing. In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Vol. LVIII, pp. 137-160). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Seybold Bulletin. (2001, Feb. 28, Vol. 6, No. 21). Seybold Publications. Shneiderman, B. (1987). User interface design and evaluation for an electronic encyclopedia. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Cognitive Engineering in the Design of Human-Computer Interaction and Expert Systems (pp. 207-223): Elsevier Science Publishers. Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (3rd ed.). Reading, Massachusetts: AddisonWesley. Simon, E. J. (2001). Electronic Textbooks: A Pilot Study of Student E-Reading Habits. Institute for Cyberinformation - Future of Print Media - Kent State University. Available: http://www.futureprint.kent.edu/articles/simon01.htm. Retrieved: March 12, 2001. Smith, A., & Savory, M. (1989). Effects and after-effects of working at a VDU: Investigation of the influence of personal variables. In E. D. Megaw (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 252-257). London: Taylor & Francis. Stork, P. P. (2001). The Promise of eBook Publishing, eBook Publishing: Standards and Technologies (Vol. 2001): New Riders, Inc.

145 Summerfield, M. (1998). Online books: What roles will they fill for users of the academic library? In C. LaGuardia & B. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Finding Common Ground (pp. 313-325). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers. Summerfield, M., & Kantor, P. B. (1996, May 1996). Columbia University Online Books Evaluation Project: Analytical Principles and Design. Columbia University. Available: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/libraries/digital/oldbocs/protocol. Retrieved: September, 2000. Summerfield, M., & Mandel, C. (1999). The Online Books Evaluation Project - Final Report. New York: Columbia University. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Thurstun, J. (2000). Screenreading: Challenges of the new literacy. In D. Gibbs & K. L. Krause (Eds.), Cyberlines: Languages and Cultures of the Internet (pp. 6178). Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas Publishers. Wearden, S. (1998a). Electronic Books: A Study of Potential Features and Their Perceived Value. Kent State University. Available: www.jmc.kent.edu/futureprint/1998fall/wearden.htm. Retrieved: October 19, 1999. Wearden, S. (1998b). Landscape vs. Portrait Formats: Assessing Consumer Preferences. Kent State University. Available: www.jmc.kent.edu/futureprint/1998summer/wearden.htm. Retrieved: October 19, 1999. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1996). New Jersey: Gramercy Books. Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, & web form. JCMC, 6(1).