I personally see myself as a non-linear reader. I have never been one with a taste for personal reading, reading text books, or really ever reading for pleasure. Most of my linear reading would involve reading analytical sports articles or some other news that specifically catches my eye. Nielsen points out in his article that "16 percent read word-by-word" referring to web reading. This is compared to a far higher number that composes readers that scan pages. I find myself not only scanning webpages but another major form of text that I scan would be tests. WheneverI pick up a test I quickly flip through the pages and scan for words that tip me off to things I know very well.
Bolter talks at the beginning of his article about people who can read music and how that relates to reading. I agree that people who can actively read a piece of music would be more apt to scanning a page. When ypou read a piece of music you need to be aware of far more than what is between the bars and also take in all accent marks, dynamic markings, and a host of other commands that require you to look all over the page constantly. It is an interesting connection to make between normal reading and reading music that present a conclusion that the music has trained your eye/brain to always be looking around.
I had forgotten that point about reading music and reading words. I suppose that's true. Reading music means understanding a whole bunch of things all at once: the measure, the notes, the tempo, the volume. In a similar way, web reading demands attention in multiple ways.