This is very nicely framed, thank you. At the risk of going slightly off track, do you think this argument about active involvement also fits (physical and not electronic)books?
I find that an eInk Kindle is "close enough" to a paper book in terms of immersion for me. But reading on my iPad (or even worse, computer) definitely is not. I get notifications, there's always the temptation to jump out and "just check email," etc. With the Kindle there is no distraction, and for me that seems to be more important than the tactile experience of a printed book (though I do still enjoy printed books).
Personally I've found that the loss of one spatial dimension in the transition from paper to ebook actually makes the book less engaging and more difficult to retain details.
I think (again, my personal experience) that reading while also having a tactile sense of where I am in the book (say ~20% of the way through) makes it easier to remember smaller details; perhaps the physical book helps my brain create a sort of "memory castle" that a little progress bar on an ebook does not.
One example: I read all but the latest Game of Thrones books in paperback (well before the HBO show was even announced). I devoured them and was able to keep track of all the families/storylines without a problem or a second thought. I tried to read the latest one as an ebook and I found I'd have forgotten details of various storylines between reading sessions. I ultimately never finished it and I'm just watching the TV show now :|
Now when I want to read a book, I buy a book - I just can't get into ebooks. Sure, it's not as convenient, but it also doesn't need to be plugged in, ever.
I'd also add that ever since I figured this out I've wanted to invent an ebook reader that actually gave you a third dimension, multiple (say ~20) eink pages with perhaps an additional tactile slider on the binding as you progress through the book.
Maybe it'll become feasible as the price for flexible eink displays drops.
An interesting question, for sure! As someone who doesn't read a lot of fiction or lengthy non-fiction works, I'm definitely not an authority. That said, my gut tells me that the effect can't possibly be as strong--we don't tend to, "read in the background" the way we consume music. A certain active involvement is required to do more than move our eyes across the pages randomly.
Interesting! To me, it does. Now I'm no luddite: I own a kindle and use it a lot. It's convenient. But to me the experience is definitely different from reading a paper book, in multiple ways: I read randomly, going back and forward a few pages multiple times, and this is currently cumbersome in an e-reader. Also, I enjoy book cover artwork -- I enjoy the look of a book -- and while it is displayed in the book list of my e-reader, it's just not the same. I want to see the book cover every time I pick the book, and in full color. I want to smell the pages. To me this is part of the experience of reading.
Still, the Kindle is so damn convenient. It's just that it's not the same pleasurable reading experience for me. It's not true that the Kindle "disappears" like Amazon claims -- or maybe, it actually disappears too much!
At risk of a bit more off topic, the active vs. passive engagement is why I brought Scrum into my company. Circulating an Excel file with a list of tasks was the passive approach. Pulling your tag off the backlog and moving it forward was the active approach. I told my skeptical management that the physical act of moving tasks through their status changes would make a difference in engagement and all members of the team said they felt more engaged with the project when we went to Scrum.
There is something to be lost in digitizing our lives, automating our activities and putting it all online. Sure, we gain time to do other things, but it seems we then fritter it away scrolling through facebook feeds, tweets and whatnot.