Paper VS Electronic Media Essay

w every newsprint vs. Electronic Media Work cleverness and environmental ImpactHirohito Shibata Fuji make off Co., Ltd., 6-1 Minatomirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 220-8668, japanAbstractTable 1. carbonic acid gas emissions per social building block quantity for individually harvest-festivalThis presentation quantitatively comp atomic chassis 18s written report andelectronic media from the perspectives of carbonic acid gas emissions and reverse aptitude. Should we reject theme out of lapse ground onenvironmental considerations? Can electronic read devices replace motif books for leisure and run for? I discuss these issues based on non-homogeneous analyses and experiments.ProductIntroductionAlthough the subjectless site has been repeatedly dismissedas a romance 1, since 2008, the consumption of business leader radical in japan has actually declined. With the approaching of electronic edition devices such as Apples iPad and the Amazon waken, the brain of the constitutionless office is top in the spotlight. How hard should we play this sly coming of the musical compositionless office? What will happen to constitution? What be the relative merits of paper andelectronic media? My colleagues and I at Fuji Xerox are mensesly at land on a look into project that seeks to practice these questions. This presentation consists of two cleaves. The first partcompares paper to electronic media from an environmentalperspective, examine carbon dioxide emissions generated by paper vs.electronic media (e.g., ready reck wizr displays, projectors) for rendering or character reference work. I also compare work efficiency for paper vs. estimator displays. The second part compares paper books andelectronic recital devices (e.g., iPad, Kindle) and discusses whetherelectronic books might actually take the place of paper books.This paper is a brief report and addresses only the results of these particularised analyses and experiments.Sta ndardPCSpecificationsDesktop superiorDesktop PC17-inch discover19-inch DisplayNotebook PCProjectorPrintercentral processing unit Intel CoreMemory Less than4GB mainframe Intel CoreMemory More than4GBTFTTFT root Morethan 1290800Electro Photo A3Printers carbon dioxide emissions perunit quantity49.60 g/hour98.42 g/hour23.36 g/hour26.34 g/hour27.59 g/hour163.58 g/hour2.58 g/sheetEnvironmental Impact report card vs. ComputerDisplayscarbonic acid gas EmissionsTable 1 presents carbonic acid gas emissions per unit quantity for distri exactlyivelyproduct. This data is based on figures for life cycle carbon dioxide emissions for for each one product obtained in November 2010 from the website of the Japan Environmental Management Association for application 2. depend 1 compares carbonic acid gas emissions associated with each strength when construe an eight-page chronicle. schooling frompaper generates CO2 emissions only at the prison term the document is printed. In this case, the h ours spent recital do non shine CO2 emissions. On the other hand, when we read from displays, CO2 emissions increase in proportion to the snip spent education. For extended rendering sessions, CO2 emissions tend to be humiliate for paper for education many short circuit documents, CO2 emissions tend to be lower with computing machine displays. touch 27 and Digital lie 2011 conformation 1. CO2 emissions associated with drill material public figure 2 compares CO2 emissions for each medium for thecase of a ten-page document divided up in a meeting. If we deliver this document on paper, CO2 emissions increase in proportion to the number of individuals attending. If we engross a projector and a single notebook PC, the number of participants doesnt affect CO2 emissions. In general, if we are sharing documents for a orotund meeting, CO2 emissions are lower when we useprojectors than when we distribute on paper. When we share short documents in small groups of two or tercet, C O2 emissions tend to be lower when we distribute documents on paper.Technical platform and Proceedings7of key oral communication in text when using paper and when using computer displays. Reading from paper was 6.8% immediate than development from displays. There was no significant discrimination between the media in the recognition test of key nomenclature. Paper stands bettinger reading without loss of understanding. bit 2. CO2 emissions associated with meeting documentsWork clevernessThe analyses of the previous section assume fit workefficiency for all media. However, efficiency may actually vary with contrasting media. Lower work efficiency nub longerworking hours, which in pervert can mean higher CO2 emissions,since elements of the workplace infrastructure (e.g., ventilation and lighting) acquire to run longer. Ill describe three experiments that compare reading performance for each medium.The first experiment examines how different media affectproofreading when the goal is to detect contextual errors. body-build 3 presents reading travel and part of errors observe when using paper vs. computer displays. Reading from paper was 11.9% faster than reading from the displays. There was no significant variation between media in function of errors sight. radiation pattern 3. Reading accelerate and the percentage of errors find in proofreading to detect contextual errors (N = 20)Figure 4. Reading speed and scores for a recognition test of key words when reading with frequent page bit (N = 18)The third experiment bringd cross-reference reading for binary documents 4. Figure 5 compares reading speed andpercentage of errors detected when using paper vs. computerdisplays. Reading from the paper was 23.2% faster than reading from displays. Moreover, more than(prenominal) errors were detected (a difference of 11.5%) with paper than with computer displays. In both speed and accuracy, paper was superior to displays in cross-reference reading. Figure 5. Reading speed and the percentage of errors detected in crossreference reading for multiple documents (N = 24)The second experiment looked at reading when the proletariatrequired frequent switching back and onward between pages 3. Figure 4 compares reading speed and scores for a recognition test82011 edict for visualise Science and engineering paroleComparisons of CO2 emissions from paper and electronicmedia indicate that the nature of a labor roots which is more eco-friendly. The three experiments here point to the high quality of paper for different reading jobs proofreading, reading with frequent movement back and forth between pages, and crossreference reading for multiple documents. Clearly, this is precisely an exhaustive listing of all designates that aim reading. Still, the results suggest paperless work is not always the about eco-friendly work style. Paper should not be rejected out of hand on environmental grounds. Rather, we should select paper or electronic mediadepending on the detail task.Figure 7 compares task effect times and accuracy(percentage of correct answers) for each medium in an experiment involving see a manual to find answers. Subjects performed this task 38.6% faster with the paper book than with the iPad and 60.2% faster than with the Kindle. Of the five media, paper books were fastest for examine text for answers.Work Efficiency Paper vs. Electronic ReadingDevicesReading manufacturingAs a typical pillowcase of reading for leisure, I evaluatedelectronic reading devices such as iPad and Kindle for reading fiction. Figure 6 shows reading speed with a paper book, an iPad, a Kindle, and a notebook PC. For reading that did not involvemoving from one page to the next, I found no significantdifference in reading speed among the four-spot media. For reading that required page turns, I found that reading from the iPad was as fast as reading from paper books, but that reading from the Kindle was slower than readi ng from paper books. This suggests that the iPad is just as suit as paper books for tasks like reading fiction.Figure 7. Completion time and percentage of correct answers when see text to fold answers to questions (N = 20)DiscussionFigure 6. Reading speed Paper book vs. electronic media (N = 26)For reading fiction, our experiment showed iPads and paperbooks offered equal reading speed for reading with and without page turns. This suggests that the trustworthy generation of electronic reading devices is suddenly suitable for reading for leisure, at to the lowest degree from the perspective of efficiency. Clearly, other factors such as cost, weight, and design will also determine whether such devices gain wide of the markspread acceptance for this purpose.Paper books proved the fastest of all five media in theexperiment involving examine text to find answers to questions, the reading task rank as the second most common in the study by Adler et al. Moreover, as discussed abov e, the currentgeneration of electronic reading devices remains poorly suited for cross-reference reading, the reading task ranked as the most common. These results suggest that the electronic reading devices currently available do not adequately cover the wide range of reading tasks required for familiarity work.Reading to answer questionsTrademarksAdler et al. 5 observed various work-related reading tasks in actual work situations and assigned each instance to one of ten categories. Among the most frequently observed tasks was crossreference reading using multiple documents. Clearly, the current generation of electronic reading devices does not permit crossreference reading. These devices do not allow us to view multiple documents at the same time, and their form factors are as well ascumbersome to overlap or differently move frequently. For this reason, I evaluated these devices for the second-most common task in the study by Adler et al. scanning text to answer questions.Micr osoft and Windows are stylemarks or registeredassay-marks of Microsoft CorporationAdobe Reader is trademark or registered trademark of AdobeSystems Inc.iPad is trademark or registered trademark of Apple Inc.Kindle is trademark or registered trademark of Amazon.comInc.NIP 27 and Digital Fabrication 2011References1Abigail J. Sellen and Richard H. Harper, The myth of the paperless office, The MIT Press, (2001).Technical Program and Proceedings9234510Web site of Japan Environmental Management Association forIndustry, http//www.jemai.or.jp/ecoleaf/index.cfm. in Japanese Hirohito Shibata and Kengo Omura, do of paper on page good turn Comparison of paper and electronic media in reading documents with endnotes, Proc. HCI International 11, (2011).Hirohito Shibata and Kengo Omura, Effects of paper in moving and arranging documents A comparison between paper and electronic media in cross-reference reading for multiple documents, Journal of the kind Interface Society, 12, 3, pg.301, (2010). in Japanese A. Adler, A. Gujar, B. Harrison, K. OHara, and A. J. Sellen, A diary study of work-related reading Design implications for digital reading devices, Proc. ki 98, pg.241, (1998).Author BiographyHirohito Shibata received his MS in mathematics from OsakaUniversity (1994) and his PhD in engine room from the University of Tokyo(2003). He is currently a research scientist at the Research and Technology Group, Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. Research interests let in cognitive science and human-computer interactions. His current research involves investigations of the strengths and weaknesses of presentation media from cognitive perspectives. He is a member of Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), The breeding Processing Society of Japan (IPSJ), The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence (JSAI), and Human Interface Society (HIS).2011 Society for Imaging Science and Technology