Wandering the Net, over at Wired.com this morning, waiting for the coffee to finish brewing . . . and I found this.

Why the Smart Reading Device of the Future May Be Ö Paper


Paper books were supposed to be dead by now. For years, information theorists, marketers, and early adopters have told us their demise was imminent. Ikea even redesigned a bookshelf to hold something other than books. Yet in a world of screen ubiquity, many people still prefer to do their serious reading on paper.

Count me among them. When I need to read deeplyówhen I want to lose myself in a story or an intellectual journey, when focus and comprehension are paramountóI still turn to paper. Something just feels fundamentally richer about reading on it. And researchers are starting to think thereís something to this feeling.

To those who see dead tree editions as successors to scrolls and clay tablets in historyís remainder bin, this might seem like literary Luddism. But I e-read often: when I need to copy text for research or donít want to carry a small library with me. Thereís something especially delicious about late-night sci-fi by the light of a Kindle Paperwhite.

What Iíve read on screen seems slippery, though. When I later recall it, the text is slightly translucent in my mindís eye. Itís as if my brain better absorbs whatís presented on paper. Pixels just donít seem to stick. And often Iíve found myself wondering, why might that be?

The usual explanation is that internet devices foster distraction, or that my late-thirty-something brain isnít that of a true digital native, accustomed to screens since infancy. But I have the same feeling when I am reading a screen thatís not connected to the internet and Twitter or online Boggle canít get in the way. And research finds that kids these days consistently prefer their textbooks in print rather than pixels. Whatever the answer, itís not just about habit.
The rest is here: http://www.wired.com/2014/05/reading...-versus-paper/