WHAT READERS WANT, READERS GET

Review of What Readers Want: A Study of E-fiction Usability
by Malama, Landoni & Wilson

Reviewed by Marcel H. Faulkner

The book as we know it is doomed and will vanish from the mainstream in our lifetimes. This may sound like the cockamamie ranting of yet another crackpot with a blog, but think about it ecologically: how will we ever explain to future generations that we killed trees so we could produce Hilary Duff biographies? But think also of practicality: reading will remain popular and necessary, but the bound paper monograph will become what the typewriter is today, a quaint nostalgia item that some of us may remember fondly but no longer use because our computers are much better for writing. The paper book will die because it will be replaced by a superior format, the e-book. E-books are easier to store, acquire, and transport than paper books, not to mention cheaper (Ormes, 2001). Libraries will be able to order and acquire e-book titles for customers in minutes, rather than the weeks or months it currently takes to order, receive, and circulate a traditional book (Ormes). Among other advantages, e-book text can be magnified, backlit to be read in total darkness, and you can fit as many as five hundred e-books on a single CD (Wikipedia, 2005).

But there are still some wrinkles to smooth out. Some e-book formats have user-unfriendly characteristics, such as lack of pagination, indexes, and tables of contents (Clark & Thompson, 2005; Malama, Landoni & Wilson, 2005). On-screen presentation is also physiologically problematic for human eyes: reading text from a computer screen causes eye strain faster than reading ordinary books does (Cox, 2004; Clark & Thompson; Morris, 2001). This is not surprising: computer screens are basically glass plates that reflect light, both from the computer itself and from external sources, directly into your eyes (Wadham, 1999), although some e-book reading devices and software have minimized this problem.

In “What readers want: a study of e-fiction usability,” Malama, Landoni, and Wilson (2005) report on a study of reader reactions to three different software e-fiction formats, and also include commentary about other relevant studies. An earlier research initiative, a series of studies collectively known as the EBONI Project and headed by Landoni and Wilson, devised a set of guidelines for e-textbooks called the Electronic Textbook Design Guidelines. Malama et al used these guidelines as a foundational springboard for the e-fiction format study, particularly the guidelines that refer to appearance, navigation, and usability.

Twenty-five readers of varying backgrounds participated in the study. These volunteers were asked to read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Adventures of Gerard using a scrolling book provided by Project Gutenberg, Microsoft Reader, and Adobe Ebook Reader, and were asked to compare the formats for ease of use and quality (Malama et al, 2005). Readers were instructed to read the three versions of the book in whatever order they preferred.

The scrolling book was the most basic of the three formats. Readers found it easy to download and use, but were generally frustrated by its lack of pagination, which they felt made the text appear monotonous and somewhat monolithic (Malama et al, 2005). Readers noted that they could not tell if they were near the beginning, middle, or end of the book, but otherwise found the scrolling book easy on the eyes.

Readers liked Microsoft Reader’s text, which resembled book print, but disliked its difficult navigation and lack of icons, and reported problems with both downloading the software and getting it to run (Malama et al, 2005). Of the three tested formats, Microsoft Reader was rated the lowest in overall satisfaction (Malama et al; see Table 1, below).

The highest rated of the three formats was Adobe Ebook Reader. While readers disliked its slow downloading and its lack of highlighting capability, they were pleased with its typeface, which was attractive and could be adjusted to suit individual tastes (Malama et al, 2005). Readers also liked that its appearance resembled the pages of a real book.

Undoubtedly, more research is necessary. No single study can provide definitive conclusions, which Malama, Landoni, and Wilson acknowledge. Even so, they still come to several intriguing conclusions, and use other studies to bolster them. For example, they note that readers are generally receptive to finding non-fiction information online, but fiction, which is read primarily for pleasure, is much different. Readers who have only desktop computers generally do not want to read novels while sitting at the desks in their offices or homes, although this portability problem can be remedied by using any of several portable hand-held e-book devices (Malama et al; Ormes, 2001). Both fiction and non-fiction readers strongly prefer that their e-books have pagination, tables of contents, and high-lighting capabilities (Malama et al). If readers are to make the transition from paper fiction to e-fiction, e-fiction typefaces should physically resemble paper text. This is absolutely essential: fiction readers have deep-rooted, long-established preferences and comfort zones for their reading, and will not tolerate formats that either tie them down or are difficult to use, or make the reading experience any less pleasurable. Keep in mind that the book is the soul of simplicity that even a baby can master, requiring only that you turn pages, which enables you to concentrate on the printed words and nothing else. Malama et al conclude, therefore, that producers of e-fiction should concentrate on the appearance of text rather than dazzling us with technological features that readers aren’t interested in. The paper book will not disappear overnight, and will probably have its cultish diehards, just as vinyl music recordings still do today, but the shift to e-formats for fiction seems to have already begun. According to the International Digital Publishing Forum, 1.4 million e-books were sold in the U.S. in 2004, a drop in the bucket compared to the multibillion-dollar American book industry, but also a significant increase from 2003 (IDPF website, 2005). The future is coming whether we like it or not.

REFERENCE LIST
Articles:
Clark, B.F. & Thompson, W. (2005). I have seen the future and it doesn’t quite work. Against the Grain, 17 (1); pp. 57-9.

Cox, J. (2004). E-books: challenges and opportunities. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (10). Retrieved Oct 17, 2005 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october04/cox/10cox.html.

Malama, C., Landoni, M., & Wilson, R. (2005). What readers want: a study of e-fiction usability. D-Lib Magazine, 11 (5). Retrieved Oct. 16, 2005 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may05/wilson/05wilson.html.

Morris, E. B. (2001). Experts say computer-related eye strain may sap productivity. Sacramento Business Journal, 18 (41); p. 24.

Ormes, S. (2001). It’s the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine), or How I learned to stop worrying and love the e-book. Ariadne 26. Retrieved Oct. 19, 2005 from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue26/e-book/.

Wadham, R. L. (1999). Eye ergonomics. Library Mosaics, 10 (2); p. 20. Retrieved Oct.18, 2005 from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml;jsessionid=R240VHBS4X0KHQA3DIKSFGOADUNGIIV0?_requestid=37405.

Websites:
Electronic Textbook Design Guidelines: http://ebooks.strath.ac.uk/eboni/guidelines/.

International Digital Publishing Forum: http://www.idpf.org/.

Project Gutenberg: http://www.promo.net/pg/.

Wikipedia, entry for Ebooks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebooks#Comparison_with_printed_books