There is a "The Science" section, referring to the Blog referring back to the same section, but I see nothing scientific about it.
Science does not work by giving loads of examples of why the approach "should" work better than traditional reading, substantiated by intuition and "80%"-"20%" figures given with no reliable source. It should instead be validated by experiments.
Here, it is simple enough to validate the approach experimentally: select texts and create simple multiple choice assignments to evaluate reading comprehension, and compare the performance of your method versus traditional reading on random people. The exact protocol would require a bit of care to avoid biases, but it wouldn't be that hard to do.
Without a study of this kind, this is just a gimmicky way to read, backed by some people's belief that it is more efficient.
(Another comment: the example French text looks like machine translation, which makes it hard to understand.)
ok it's not really my job to prove their app, but to me it seems logical that reducing eye movement leads to higher performance. a quick search on google scholar [1].
i'm happy for them, yet another thing i can stroke off my todo list. tyvm
I'm puzzled by this paper, though, and by the number it reports: > 1600 wpm for spritzing (that's > 25 words per second), but even this 790 wpm median rate for standard reading (called PAGE, page 5, column 2, line 2) is something of a mystery to me...
The german language text could be better. Also some words are broken up, and some very long words still there in full length... makes it harder to read.
Science does not work by giving loads of examples of why the approach "should" work better than traditional reading, substantiated by intuition and "80%"-"20%" figures given with no reliable source. It should instead be validated by experiments.
Here, it is simple enough to validate the approach experimentally: select texts and create simple multiple choice assignments to evaluate reading comprehension, and compare the performance of your method versus traditional reading on random people. The exact protocol would require a bit of care to avoid biases, but it wouldn't be that hard to do.
Without a study of this kind, this is just a gimmicky way to read, backed by some people's belief that it is more efficient.
(Another comment: the example French text looks like machine translation, which makes it hard to understand.)