3 ms·
It's not that clear-cut. There's a real reason to ask if there's studies here, because it's not easy to self-assess if this actually works. Reading is more than
by tomkarlo 13y ago
It's not that clear-cut. There's a real reason to ask if there's studies here, because it's not easy to self-assess if this actually works. Reading is more than just "how fast can I scan the lines in order" - it's also about comprehension, eye fatigue, etc. All of which are hard for an individual to assess casually.
I think this is interesting, but I'd want to see studies on what the incremental cognitive load of "color matching" (not something I'm particularly great at) does to reading comprehension, and what the impact of this is on how much I can read in a sitting. It's no good if you read 50% faster but tire out 3X as fast.
- skizm 13y agoI totally disagree with this sentiment (respectfully, of course). If you know the numbers it will bias your experience. You need to try it for yourself and determine on an individual level if your comprehension/speed suffers, improves or stays the same.
- pessimizer 13y agoYour self-assessment of your subjective experience is notoriously inaccurate and biased in particular, predictable ways.
- tomkarlo 13y agoI'm saying that regardless of whether you know the number or not, you're probably unable to assess the impact of the system simply via personal trial. E.g., one person can't test reading speed or comprehension on the exact same body of text with both methods, for obvious reasons.