Abstract:
The expansion of reading on screens and within digital lifeworlds has transformed patterns of attention, presence, and the depth of processing in reading. The relationship between print and digital reading has now become an interdisciplinary issue that is directly tied to the design of reading spaces. To clarify the impact of the architecture of reading spaces on reading quality, with a focus on mechanisms of immersion, it becomes essential to ask how mediating spaces can enhance reading quality or, by adding cognitive load, diminish it. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach within a space‑based theoretical framework that distinguishes three levels of reading - hegemonic space, resistant space, and mediating space - and using a theoretical–documentary method through a critical review of the interdisciplinary literature on reading and technology, together with a comparison of reading quality across print (paper) and digital (electronic) media, the present study examines how changes in reading spaces and technological developments affect reading quality via the degree of audience immersion in these spaces. The findings show that the architecture of digital reading spaces, by virtue of the design of interactive narratives, exerts a direct influence on the depth of users’ immersion. In particular, the results indicate that in digital reading, mediating spaces can enhance reading quality by strengthening the sense of presence and enabling two‑way interaction; however, this advantage must be considered alongside the specific cognitive challenges of such spaces if the quality of reader participation in reading is to improve. Such enhancement of interaction can be achieved by purposefully guiding the mediating spaces and mitigating the sources of strain that compromise reading quality. 
Keywords: Media, Digital, Reading, Space, Mediated Spaces, Interactive narration, Immersion.
 
Introduction
Over the past two decades, reading has migrated from the page to screens, transforming not only where we read but the spaces within which reading unfolds. Digital texts now embed hyperlinks, annotations, and interactive layers that constitute mediating spaces around the core text, expanding opportunities for engagement while also introducing cognitive costs (visual fatigue, fragmentation, and reduced sustained attention). This article reframes the print‑versus‑digital debate through a space‑based lens, arguing that the architecture of reading spaces, rather than the carrier medium alone, explains differences in immersion and comprehension. To build this lens, the study synthesizes scholarship across cognitive reading research and media studies with spatial theory (e.g., Lefebvre’s production of space, Lotman’s semiosphere, Foucault’s heterotopias), and positions deep reading as an outcome of how reading spaces are designed and navigated. The guiding question is: How do the architectures of digital reading spaces shape immersion, presence, and the quality of comprehension, and what design levers strengthen deep reading? 
Materials & Methods
This is a fundamental, theory‑building study using an analytic conceptual method and documentary sources (books, peer‑reviewed articles, programmatic reports). The procedure unfolded in four steps:
1. Scoping review of international and national literature on reading across print and digital environments;
2. Theoretical integration of spatial concepts : (hegemonic/resistant/mediating spaces) with constructs from reading research (immersion, presence, cognitive load);
3. Comparative analysis of reading spaces and game‑based interactive spaces to surface shared mechanisms of presence and agency;
4. Model articulation, yielding a triadic spatial framework and a set of design heuristics for digital reading that balance interactivity with deep comprehension. No new behavioral data were collected; the contribution is an integrated conceptual architecture plus practice‑oriented implications. 
 
Discussion & Result
1.      Architecture over carrier: The decisive factor for reading quality is the design of the reading space (layout, pacing, navigational cues, link density, and the choreography of interaction), not simply whether the carrier is print or screen. Interactive narrative design directly modulates immersion. 
2.      Mediating spaces as double‑edged: Thoughtfully designed mediating spaces (notes, glosses, contextual layers) increase sense of presence and bidirectional interaction; poorly orchestrated layers increase cognitive load, amplify visual fatigue, and can depress comprehension—especially in long or complex texts. 
3.      Stability vs. volatility of spatial cues: Print’s stable affordances (fixed pagination, tactile anchors) support spatial memory and deep reading. Screen environments, dominated by continuous scrolling and multitasking, bias toward skimming and overconfidence in understanding unless counter‑designed. 
4.      Preference gradient of contemporary reading: Readers disproportionately consume short, multimodal texts on screens, engage with medium‑length texts when supported by images/structure, and reserve long‑form (literary or academic) for contexts with stronger spatial scaffolding—often print or print‑like screen designs. 
5.      Triadic space model: Reading practices can be mapped to hegemonic spaces (linear print‑like), resistant spaces (user agency, platform constraints challenged), and mediating spaces (interactive paratexts that bridge text and context). Hybrids are common in digital settings. 
6.      Three strands of immersion:
a.       Temporal immersion (coherent story time‑lines vs. fragmentation),
b.      Spatial immersion (cohesive mental mapping of the text’s world/interface),
c.       Emotional immersion (affective engagement through narrative and multimodal cues).
Each strand can be strengthened, or weakened, by space design choices. 
7.      Design levers for deep reading: Clear navigational wayfinding, disciplined link choreography, distraction‑reduced modes, and structured paratexts (e.g., summaries, breadcrumbs, stable headings) reliably support deeper comprehension while preserving interactivity. 
8.      Cross‑media resonance: Game‑space analogies show that agency and presence rise when interaction is purposeful, bounded, and readable; indiscriminate interactivity degrades focus. 
The findings recast “print vs. screen” as a spatial design problem. When digital reading is criticized for shallow processing, the culprit is rarely digitization per se but the volatile architecture of many screen spaces (endless scrolls, dense link fields, concurrent notifications). Conversely, digital environments can equal, or even exceed-print when they stabilize spatial cues (paginated or chunked layouts), stage interactivity (links that extend meaning rather than detour it), and pace attention (temporal breaks, preview/recap structures). In this sense, mediating spaces are not extra media; they are the designed in‑betweens that either scaffold deep reading or scatter it.
Implications follow for multiple stakeholders:
·        Designers/platforms: Implement dual‑mode interfaces (skim ↔ deep), explicit wayfinding, link minimalism for long‑form, and calm interaction patterns to curb cognitive load.
·        Publishers/educators: Commission editions and courses that teach spatial navigation (e.g., strategic hyperlinking, note‑taking within the same space), not merely content coverage.
·        Researchers: Pair this conceptual model with empirical studies (eye‑tracking, workload indices, presence measures) to quantify how specific spatial features modulate comprehension and affect.
Limits of the study include its non‑experimental design and reliance on secondary sources; however, the article’s contribution is a coherent spatial framework that unifies dispersed results in cognitive reading and media studies with a practical design vocabulary. 
 
Conclusion
Reading is a spatial practice: comprehension and immersion depend on how the reading space is built, sequenced, and signposted. By shifting attention from medium to space, this article shows that digital reading’s shortcomings are design‑contingent, not inherent. Mediating spaces, when curated, heighten presence and interaction; when unbounded, they tax working memory and thin understanding. The way forward is to architect guided mediating spaces that (1) preserve coherent temporal flow, (2) stabilize spatial anchors, and (3) enrich emotional engagement without saturating attention. In doing so, digital environments can reconcile efficiency with depth, sustaining the values of deep reading while embracing the affordances of contemporary media ecologies