與紙本書相比，電子文本的優勢為可以一次攜帶大量的資料、以及方便搜尋關鍵字詞，但是閱讀電子文本的時候，需要將其呈現在螢幕上，而過去許多研究比較紙本以及螢幕的閱讀都發現這兩種裝置會造成不同的閱讀行為（Dillon, 1992; Noyes & Garland, 2008）。最近幾年快速發展的電子書閱讀器欲整合紙本書以及電子文本的優點，目標是成為未來主要之知識載具。本研究以遠流金庸機為例，假設電子書閱讀器會誘發出不同於紙本書的閱讀行為；而如果電子書閱讀器要成為未來主要的知識載具，那麼，電子書閱讀器必須要有相當於紙本書一樣的易讀性與易用性。實驗一為易用性測試，測試遠流金庸機的基本操作、畫線、做筆記、以及查字典等功能，測試過程中要求使用者放聲思考，並以問卷測量使用後所產生的心智負荷以及主觀感受到的易用程度。結果發現遠流金庸機有反應速度慢、回饋不夠明確、手指遮蔽、容易當機、導覽不明等易用性問題，我們在實驗一的討論中針對降低當機率、簡化功能鍵與功能的對應關係、減少手指遮蔽問題提出具體建議。實驗二比較紙本書以及電子書閱讀器上的閱讀行為，邀請有閱讀習慣的受試者在自然的閱讀情境中，分別在紙本書以及電子書閱讀器上閱讀金庸短篇小說，閱讀結束後接受包含撰寫摘要以及是非選擇題的閱讀理解測驗、心智負荷量表、以及主觀視覺疲勞量表的施測。結果發現在兩種知識載具上的閱讀速度以及主觀視覺疲勞分數有顯著差異；女性閱讀紙本書較閱讀電子書快，男性閱讀電子書比閱讀紙本書快。從本研究的結果看來，紙本書的易用性以及易讀性仍優於電子書閱讀器，但是電子書閱讀器在延伸閱讀、字體大小可調整、以及資料攜帶的便利性仍占有優勢，而且遠流金庸機的易用性問題不一定會發生在其他的電子書閱讀器上。隨著科技的快速發展，繁體中文電子書閱讀器的發展仍是可以期待的。

Contrasting with paper-book, E-book has the advantage of taking great amount of information and the accessibility of hyper link. According to the researches which compared the reading behaviors on paper-book to screen, reading on different media cause different reading behaviors (Dillon, 1992; Noyes & Garland, 2008). E-book reader is going to integrate the advantages of paper-book and e-book to become a main vehicle of knowledge. Our study take JinYong reader for example, hypothesize that e-book reader would cause different behaviors from paper-book. And if e-book reader would become the main vehicle of knowledge in the future, then it must have equivalent legibility and usability to paper-book. Experiment 1 is a usability test. We recruited the users who take a lot of time on reading to test the function of JinYong Reader, for example, basic operation, highlighting, note taking, and dictionary. The users took mental workload and usability questionnaires after each task. The results show JinYong Reader’s slow reaction time, unclear feedback, ease of crash, and ambiguous navigation. We make suggestion for lower crash rate, simplifying the corresponding of button and function, and reducing finger shelter in the discussion. Experiment 2 asked users to read novels separately on e-book reader and paper-book in natural condition, compared their reading behaviors on paper-book to JinYong Reader. The users accepted subjective visual fatigue scale, NASA-TLX mental workload scale, and reading comprehension tests after reading. The result shows the difference on reading speed and subjective visual fatigue between paper-book and JinYong Reader is significant, and the interaction between reading speed and gender is significant. According to our results, the usability and legibility of paper-book is still better than e-book reader. However, e-book reader provide hyper link and is more convenient to carry information. Also, the usability disadvantage of JinYong reader may not happen on the other e-book readers. With the high development of technology, the traditional Chinese e-book reader’s evolution is still in prospect.

柯華葳(2006)，教出閱讀力，台北：天下文化書坊。
陳忠輝、石佳玄（民99）。電子書出版產業現況與未來趨勢。印刷科技，26(2)，
49-77。
Anakwe, B. (2008). Comparison of student performance in
paper-based versus computer-based testing. Journal of
Education for Business, 84(1), 13-17.
Brooke, J. (1986). SUS - A "quick and dirty" usability
scale: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.
Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screen: a
critical review of the empirical literature.
Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.
Hart, S.G. & Staveland, L.E., (1988). Development of the
NASATLX (Task Load Index): Results of experimental and
theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N.
(Eds.), Human Mental Workload. North Holland,
Amsterdam, pp. 139–183.
Heuer, H., G. Hollendiek, H. Kröger and T. Römer. (1989).
“Die Ruhelage der Augen und ihr Einfluß auf
Beobachtungsabatand und visuelle Ermüdung bei
Bildschirmarbeit,” Zeitschrift für experimentelle und
angewandte psychologie, No. 36, 538-566.
Kang, Y. Y., Wang M. J., & Lin R. (2009). Usability
evaluation of E-books. Displays, 30(2), 49-52.
Leeson , H. V. (2006). The mode effect: A literature review
of human and technological issues in computerized
testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 1-24.
Lunden, I.(2012, December 27). One in four Americans owns a
tablet, overtaking e-readers, as printed book
consumption to decline: Pew [Web blog message].
Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/27/one-in-
four-americans-owns-a-tablet-overtaking-e-readers-as-
printed-book-consumption-continues-to-decline-pew/
Macleod, M., Bowden, R., & Bevan, N. (1997). The MUSiC
performance measurement method. Behaviour and
Information Technology, 16(45), 279-293.
Mayes, D.K., Sims, V.K., & Koonce, J.M., (2001).
Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and
paper-based reading. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 28(6), 367–378.
Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from
computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(4), 329-
358.
Nielson, J.(1993). Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic
Press.
Nielson, J.(2000, March 19). Why you only need to test with
5 users [Web blog message]. Retrieved from
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-
test-with-5-users/.
Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2003). VDT versus paper-
based text: reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce.
Ergonomics, 31(6), 411-423.
Noyes, J. M., Garland, K. J., & Robbins, E. (2004). Paper-
based versus computer-based assessment—is workload
another test mode effect? British Journal of
Educational Technology, 35(1), 111-113.
Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2008). Computer– vs. paper–
based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51(9),
1352–1375.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J., & Thunin, O. (1997). Effects of
screen presentation on text reading and revising.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
47(4), 565-589.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of
reading. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Schumacher, P. & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, internet
and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in
Human Behavior, 17(1), 95-110.
Shieh, K. K., Chen, M. H., & Wang, Y. W. (2005). Effects of
display medium and luminance contrast on memory
performance and EEG response. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(9), 797-805.
Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., & Groner, R. (2010). Improving
the usability of E-book readers. Journal of usability
studies, 6(1), 25-38.
Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R.
(2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays
and print. Display, 32(5), 268-273.
Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T.
(2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on
consumption and production of information:
psychological and physiological factors. Computers in
Human Behavior, 21(2), 377–394.
Ziefle, M. (1998). Effects of display resolution on visual
performance. Human Factors, 40(4), 554-568.