From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:19:56 -0600

In my recent trips on airplanes, I'd estimate that reading was divided
almost equally between books and newspapers/magazines (the latter
often being the magazines supplied by the airlines themselves). Mostly
when i have been able to observe people using various laptops or
tablets I have seen them reading neither books nor
newspapers/magazines but playing some type of game or doing some type
of professional work (reading reports, etc.).

I have become more observant of such activity since reading Jim's
first report of his observations, though i don't attempt to be as
systematic as he is. Speaking to Laval's point, if i have an
interesting person to converse with seated next to me, I'll opt for
that over reading. On more than one occasion these conversations have
revealed the truth in the maxim about "six degrees of separation."

Sandy Thatcher



> From: Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:51:18 -0800
>
> Glad to have this latest installment of statistics from your
> continuing unobtrusive observational research, as I suppose a social
> scientist would normally call it. And I'm wondering about the point of
> the study -- that is to say:
>
> Is there in fact a population to which you're hopeful of generalizing
> from this sample, broader than let's say all current Sunday train
> takers between D.C. and Wilmington (or Philly, NYC, . . .)? --  People
> in general?  Readers in general?  Train travelers in general?
> Travelers in general?  Adult residents of the north-central U.S. East
> Coast?  Today's Americans?
>
> Anyway, another perhaps interesting research question might be the
> extent to which choosing to travel by train, or by a certain kind of
> train such as the I assume more expensive Acela, in the first place,
> correlates positively with fondness for reading. (Also: the degree to
> which the *content*/genre etc. dictates or influences the choice of
> medium (device or codex) or, alternatively, the other way around.) And
> would you observe the same codex/device ratios in an airport, or say a
> hospital, waiting area? on the deck of a cruise ship? at the doctor's
> office? among readers in their own homes?
>
> Incidentally,
>
>  > Twenty years ago, the choices were read or sleep.  Then it
>  > was read, sleep, or type.  Now it's read, sleep, type, or divert
>>
>>  yourself with video (numerous tablets doing that) or facebook
>>  or texting or twittering or . . . .
>
>
> Aren't you leaving out another important choice, for both then and now
> (apart from staring out the window): i.e., conversing with a
> fellow-passenger or passengers, either travel-mates or strangers? In
> this country at least (OK -- insofar as I am the unobtrusive observing
> party on local but, even more so, express trains), this choice is so
> commonly operative that it frequently hinders me and many others in
> our reading activity -- be that in codex- or device-enabled form.
>
> Some reports of empirical research on reading in trains does exist, by
> the way. Interestingly, a recent study on German trains (reported by
> Kamp, Kilincsoy, & Vink in _Ergonomics_ 54.11 (Nov 2011), on
> p.1029-1042) revealed that "the most observed activity was talking and
> discussing, closely followed by relaxing and reading". Although a 2007
> study (Khan & Sundström, "Effects of vibration on sedentary activities
> in passenger trains", in _Journal of low frequency noise, vibration
> and active control_ 26.1, p.43-55) found "chatting with other
> passengers" a frequent activity on Swedish trains though less so than
> reading, a master's thesis from the same year found "that the top
> three activities on trains in India were talking to fellow passengers,
> no particular activity (interpreted as relaxing) and reading". It
> seems we could use a whole lot of further, preferably also
> qualitative, research in this area.
>
> Then again, there are those who might *like* to read but don't because
> the combination of reading and movement makes them nauseous. Or worse.
> Interestingly enough, there was a short piece in the Christmas 1872
> number of _Bow bells : a magazine of general literature and art for
> family reading_, on p.532, called "Reading in the trains". There you
> will even find stated: "The practice of reading in railway trains has
> often been objected to by medical authorities ... and if the practice
> of railroad reading is persisted in, [it] must result in  permanent
> injury. ... The safe and prudent mode is to read little, if any. The
> deliberate finishing of volumes in railway trains is highly
> detrimental."  Has our technology improved that much :-)?
>
>
> - Laval Hunsucker
>  Breukelen, Nederland