From: Linda TerHaar <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:20:31 -0500


Systematic surveying would indeed be interesting and informative with
carefully construed definitions.  Had Provost O'Donnell been a fellow
passenger my cross-country flight yesterday, he would have seen at least
one head-phoned passenger knitting.  Most likely I would not have been
included in his observations.  Was I reading?  Yes, by at least some broad
definitions.  Reading an audiobook.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:32:44 -0500, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> From: "James J. O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:30:04 -0500
>
> With thanks for comments on my last update.  To Laval H., I observed
> only that I did not count "chatting" as an activity because the Amtrak
> "Quiet Car," civilization's last bulwark against a world of cell
> yellers, would skew the numbers.
>
> On a cross-country flight yesterday, I happened to notice that my row
> of seats had six tablet computers, so I got up to do a count of about
> 150 seats, from which:
>
> 30 were reading print;
> 11 were reading e-readers (dedicated Kindle/Nook or iPad that I could
> see was being read for text),
> 16 were using an electronic device for other purposes (mainly laptops
> but also video on a tablet)
>
> There was some chatting and a lot of napping, lolling, and staring.
> My *mild* observation is that I had imagined the e-/print reading
> ratio would have been higher, given that long-haul trains and planes
> are populated by people with *some* disposable cash and with an
> interest in diverting themselves effectively, and for all that we hear
> of sales, the numbers are still modest.  I repeat my observation,
> though, that the tablet/laptop/phone provides other resources for
> distraction besides "reading".
>
> I'm well aware there is no statistical significance to these
> observations:  systematic surveying would be interesting.
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> Georgetown