Reading is work
September 24th 2008 05:55
Reading ought to be work. That's what a number of people complaining about the way we read on the Internet as compared to the way we read text in any other format seem to be saying. For some reason they delight in blaming Google for this, as though Google had suddenly invented a way of reading that was counter to the norm.
But I don't think they're telling us anything we don't already know. In discussions with a number of people over the years, I don't find that anyone reads anything that requires serious attention online; if you want to understand it properly, you tend to copy it out on an old-fashioned piece of paper (or several) and read it away from the screen.
I think there are at least two reasons why we skim on-screen: firstly because it isn't comfortable reading at length in the position most of us sit in when faced with a screen. Secondly - and this is only a suggestion - it's because we have an innate sense that reading one thing in depth on screen will be cutting us off from reading dozens of other things on screen. When we're staring at a computer screen full of information, we're
usually looking for something. Our attention span isn't the problem, as many of these pundits claim. We're not lacking in attention any more than we were in the past; the issue is that on-screen reading (Googling, if you really want to blame them) and searching usually go hand in hand.
If I find something that's of interest, I'll throw it off to the printer, and get on with the initial task: searching for other related things. Equally, if I do skim your in-depth piece while online, it's to see if it's worth checking out in full. Very occasionally I'll read the whole thing online, but I always read it in more of a hurry than I would if I printed it out.
And what's the difference between skimming the screen and skimming the newspaper - something that we do as a norm?
When it comes to giving serious attention to the reading of textbooks, long articles, non-fiction and fiction, we do this away from the computer. Reading takes a variety of forms, and reading on-screen is just one of them.
See more of Jamelah's photos on Flickr.com
But I don't think they're telling us anything we don't already know. In discussions with a number of people over the years, I don't find that anyone reads anything that requires serious attention online; if you want to understand it properly, you tend to copy it out on an old-fashioned piece of paper (or several) and read it away from the screen.
I think there are at least two reasons why we skim on-screen: firstly because it isn't comfortable reading at length in the position most of us sit in when faced with a screen. Secondly - and this is only a suggestion - it's because we have an innate sense that reading one thing in depth on screen will be cutting us off from reading dozens of other things on screen. When we're staring at a computer screen full of information, we're
"What am I reading?
If I find something that's of interest, I'll throw it off to the printer, and get on with the initial task: searching for other related things. Equally, if I do skim your in-depth piece while online, it's to see if it's worth checking out in full. Very occasionally I'll read the whole thing online, but I always read it in more of a hurry than I would if I printed it out.
And what's the difference between skimming the screen and skimming the newspaper - something that we do as a norm?
When it comes to giving serious attention to the reading of textbooks, long articles, non-fiction and fiction, we do this away from the computer. Reading takes a variety of forms, and reading on-screen is just one of them.
See more of Jamelah's photos on Flickr.com
| 43 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by bevetal
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report