LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:53:25 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
From: Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:13:59 -0500


Planes might skew towards print.  They have you turn off electronics
for take off and landing on planes, so that may skew things.  There is
at least a 30 minute chunk when people can't have the e-readers and
phones on.  If they want to read continuously, then they can only do
that with print, and so might select print specifically for that.  The
no electronics period also increases the chances of thumbing the
airplane magazines, etc, and then continuing that even when
electronics can go back on.

-Wilhelmina Randtke

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:32 PM, 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2