I think it’s fair to consider this enough of a nonissue to not care. But I honestly don’t understand where the confidence that the study is completely flawed comes from.
I am willing to put in effort to work out an experiment relevant to Less Wrong, but only if other people are willing to actually participate.
I don’t believe the original study was completely flawed, and indeed as far as it went it might not have been flawed at all. As I read it, the study showed
Experienced web surfers use a pile of neurons when surfing the web
Reading a sequential story where the links to further pages were somehow intermixed with the text of the story was slower and more confusing than reading a sequential story where the links to further pages were at the end and labeled “next”
Reading comprehension of a flat article which had not hyperlinks in it was better than reading comprehension of that same flat article when hyperlinks were added to it, whether or not the hyperlinks were followed.
If you want to make a test that shows hyperlinks are better, test the readers of the article with hyperlinks on some of the things the hyperlinks went to. We will then find that readers of the hyperlinked articles comprehended more than readers of the same articles without hyperlinks.
I imagine when I read hyperlinked articles on something that my alternative to a few hours of that is a few days of reading textbooks, and having to hope I remember the connections from one book to another and can find information in the other books when I need it. Even before hypertext I used book indexes and tables of contents extensively when I was learning something.
I think it’s fair to consider this enough of a nonissue to not care. But I honestly don’t understand where the confidence that the study is completely flawed comes from.
I am willing to put in effort to work out an experiment relevant to Less Wrong, but only if other people are willing to actually participate.
I don’t believe the original study was completely flawed, and indeed as far as it went it might not have been flawed at all. As I read it, the study showed
Experienced web surfers use a pile of neurons when surfing the web
Reading a sequential story where the links to further pages were somehow intermixed with the text of the story was slower and more confusing than reading a sequential story where the links to further pages were at the end and labeled “next”
Reading comprehension of a flat article which had not hyperlinks in it was better than reading comprehension of that same flat article when hyperlinks were added to it, whether or not the hyperlinks were followed.
If you want to make a test that shows hyperlinks are better, test the readers of the article with hyperlinks on some of the things the hyperlinks went to. We will then find that readers of the hyperlinked articles comprehended more than readers of the same articles without hyperlinks.
I imagine when I read hyperlinked articles on something that my alternative to a few hours of that is a few days of reading textbooks, and having to hope I remember the connections from one book to another and can find information in the other books when I need it. Even before hypertext I used book indexes and tables of contents extensively when I was learning something.