Now I am really confused. This article by Annie Sneed is similar but much more compelling for me than the Smithsonian article. A lot of what is sad backs up my original theory that reading on screen is a bad innovation and that paper still needs to be used. In one section the article states, " But this style of reading may come at a cost—Liu noted in his study that sustained attention seems to decline when people read onscreen rather than on paper, and that people also spend less time on in-depth reading. “In digital, we can link in different media, images, sound, and other text, and people can get overwhelmed,” explains Andrew Dillon". I, myself, have always believed that paper has the advantage due to the physicalness of it and when I read on screen I tend to get a headache easily. However, I am still open minded when it comes to others opinions on the subject. Honestly, it comes down to personal preference in most ways.
Comments
Post a Comment