This is why I don't think the library will ever become obsolete. When you want to actually sit down and commit to reading, in and of itself, there is no better methodology than grabbing a hardback and turning a few pages. Being able to read on electronic devices is great too, don't get me wrong, but I think nowadays people's attention spans are too short/sporadic to be able to filter out all the extra stuff the electronics provide. It's too easy to find yourself in a lull in the text and just skip to some other website or article. I tend to read everything fairly analytically and with focus but I think people like myself are the rarity on the web. Most people are just reading out of boredom or they don't really care about whatever clickbait site they just opened. Much like the article said with keyword skimming, just glancing whatever it is over until you find something that catches your eye. Then you just go to that and start the process over again, never actually committing yourself to mentally digesting whatever information is being presented.

Really interesting topic though. Would you say that this change in reading style is going to push classic literature out the door? Maybe ushering in an entirely new style writing? I can't imagine being able to skim-read anything with real depth to the characters and story.

I get a lot more out of reading paper books. Because I'm a speed reader, and highly visual, and can absorb a lot more information from well designed books (have the odd skill of being able to read an entire page at once, kinda like mass data aggregation, and I continually skip back and forth between paragraphs, pages). This is much harder on a computer screen. Like how people who are fast readers can get frustrated with text in a movie that stays on the screen for like forever, for people who are slower readers.

Also, being tactile/kinaesthetic (touching, feeling is part of the learning experience), not having books means missing out on physically engaging, turning pages, picking up a pen and writing in the margins, and so forth.

Once technology advances enough so that we can have devices that mimic the look and feel of paperbooks-- that'll be nice. Reading on tablets and small devices is frustrating, it's like reading at a snail's pace, a screen for ants.

I do most of my writing on paper, but I don't think that is because of concentration (I think it's a deep paranoia that out there is someone who will take my work online as their own). I think it's good to write/read on paper from time to time. We absorb so much content these days, and much of it is really unavoidable on the internet with ads and stuff. Sometimes it's just nice to be able to do things at your own pace with no distractions.

I'm surprised the article didn't address backlit screens vs front lit or traditional print. Eye fatigue is a massive factor that effects our reading habits. In fact, I'd wager it's the ONLY factor messing with how we read on devices versus not.

I know personally I cannot CANNOT read for content from a back-lit glowing screen. I can skim, browse, read short news articles (that yes, I probably read non-linearly like the article says) but when my art history professors dropped a few ten page articles on us every week to read, I HAD to print them out and read them on paper. People looked at me funny when I showed up to class with my binder of printed out articles, but I darn well know I got more content out of them.

I own a Nook Simpletouch with Glowlight for my digital books. It's that E-ink display so it looks like regular soft-cover book/newsprint paper when you view it. When you turn on the glowlight, it's a front-light. Meaning the wee LEDs shine light on the front of the surface from the edges. Eye fatigue is non-existent compared to my mom's glowing Nook tablet thing. She can't read on it either and it's changed from a "take it on the boat to read while your dad fishes" machine into an AngryBirds and Facebook machine.

This is a really good read! I still love the act of just sitting down, hopefully with a beer or two by my side and reading for a good couple of hours, and I think I'll never want to give that up.

Despite the attempt to distract readers with its moving images, I read the whole article.

I love the feel of a book it my hands. There really is a feeling of accomplishment as you pass the halfway mark and the book suddenly feels lighter in your hands.

Evolution of eyesight might not catch up quickly enough for all of us, so thank you technology. I'm hopeful that there will be innovations that allow readers of web-based text to read in a similar fashion to paper.

I've moved enough times that I am over lugging books between living spaces, and many of my peers have gone digital as well. For many of my generation, there is no longer the need for the classist system of "displayed books = intelligence", and I applaud that sentiment. Less is more when it comes to our living; for our families, environment, and our culture. What's the need for a 5,000 square foot home when you are comfortable with 1000?

It is time to embrace the technology, adapt, and move on.

I personally find paper books to be frustrating, especially if I need to go look for a particular reference. The ability to search an ebook by keyword cannot be overrated. There's really nothing special to me about the tactile nature of a traditional book. It just gets in the way, for the most part.

Interestingly, I also find that the depth with which I read something on the Internet actually changes based on where I found it. For example, I read through this entire article primarily because it was linked on Hubski, where the stated goal of the community is to inspire intelligent discussion. I knew that I'd need to read through the whole article if I wanted to be informed enough about its contents to post anything meaningful.

Had I found it on reddit, where the rapid consumption of content is my driving motivation, I almost certainly would have skimmed through it and moved on to the next meme or gif. On Facebook, I think my reaction might further depend on who posted it.

This has a lot of interesting implications for eyetracking research as well. Eyetracking studies basically only have participants reading on a screen, so that distance from the text is controlled, amount of text they see at one time is controlled, etc etc. While this is probably representative of how people read on screens, it might not be representative of other types of reading based on the research presented in this article. I wonder if anyone has done an eyetracking study with identical sentences on paper vs. a screen and looked for differences in scanpaths, first-pass times, and regressions.