Carol Bergfeld Mills
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
This paper reviews empirical studies concerning the readability of text from computer screens. The review focuses on the form and physical attributes of complex, realistic displays of text material. Most studies comparing paper and computer screen readability show that screens are less readable than paper. There are many factors that could affect the readability of computer screens. The factors explored in this review are the features of characters, the formatting of the screen, the contrast and color of the characters and background, and dynamic aspects of the screen. Numerous areas for future research are pinpointed.
- ASKWALL, S. 1985. Computer supported reading vs. reading text on paper: A comparison of two reading situations. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 22, 425-439.Google Scholar
- BALDWIN, T. S., AND BAILEY, L. J. 1971. Readability of technical training materials presented on microfiche versus offset copy. J. Appl. Psychol. 55, 37-41.Google Scholar
- BAUER, D., AND CAVONIUS, C. R. 1980. Improving the legibility of visual display units through contrast reversal. In Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals, E. Grandjean and E. Vigliani, Eds. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 137-142.Google Scholar
- BECK, I. L., AND CARPENTER, P. A. 1986. Cognitive approaches to understanding reading. Am. Psychol. 41, 1098-1105.Google Scholar
- BELDIE, I. P., PASTOOR, S., AND SCHWARZ, E. 1983. Fixed versus variable letter width for televised text. Hum. Factors 25, 273-277.Google Scholar
- BEVAN, N. 1981. Is there an optimum speed for presenting text on a VDU? Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 14, 59-76.Google Scholar
- BOUMA, H. 1980. Visual reading processes and the quality of text displays. In Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals, E. Grandjean and E. Vigliani, Eds. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 101-114.Google Scholar
- BOUMA, H., AND DE VOOOO, A. H. 1974. On the control of eye saccades in reading. Vision Res. 14, 273-284.Google Scholar
- BROWN, B. S., DISMUKES, R. K., AND RINALDUCCI, E. J. 1982. Video display terminals and vision of workers: Summary and overview of a symposium. Behav. Inf. Technol. 1, 121-140.Google Scholar
- BROWN, H., O'BRIEN, C. D., SAWCHUK, W., STOREY, J. R., AND TREURNIET, W. C. 1980. Telidon Videotex and user-related issues. In Processing of Visible Language 2, P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, and H. Bouma, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 473-479.Google Scholar
- BRUCE M., AND FOSTER, J. J. 1982. The visibility of colored characters on colored backgrounds in Viewdata displays. Visible Lang. 16, 382-390.Google Scholar
- BUCKLER, A. T. 1977. A review of the literature on the legibility of alphanumerics on electronic displays. Tech. Memo. 16-77, (NTIS AD A040625) U.S. Army Engineering Laboratory. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Md.Google Scholar
- CAHILL, M.-C., AND CARTER, R. C., JR. 1976. Color code size for searching displays of different density. Hum. Factors 18, 273-280.Google Scholar
- CAKIR, A., HART, D. J., ANO STEWART, T. F. M. 1980. Visual Display Terminals. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- CAMPBELL, A. J., MARCHETTI, F. M., AND MEWHORT, D. J. K. 1981. Reading speed and text production: A note on right-justification techniques. Ergonomics 24, 633-640.Google Scholar
- CARD, S. K., MORAN, T. P., AND NEWELL, A. 1983. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. Google Scholar
- CARTER, R. C. 1982. Search time with a color display: Analysis of distribution functions. Hum. Factors 24, 203-212.Google Scholar
- CARTER, R. C., AND CAHILL, M. -C. 1979. Regression models of search time for color-coded information displays. Hum. Factors 21,292-302.Google Scholar
- CHRIST, R. E. 1975. Review and analysis of color coding research for visual displays. Hum. Factors 17, 545-570.Google Scholar
- CLAUER, C. K. 1977. CRT display legibility with reduced character size. Rep. HFC-25, iBM Human Factors Center, General Products Division, San Jose, Calif.Google Scholar
- COCKLIN, T. G., WARD, N. J., CHEN, H., AND JUOLA, J. F. 1984. Factors influencing readability of rapidly presented text segments. Mem. Cognition 12, 431-442.Google Scholar
- CORNOG, D. Y., AND ROSE, F. C. 1967. Legibility of Alphanumeric Characters and Other Symbols. II. A Reference Handbook. National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication, 262-2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- CUSHMAN, W. H. 1986. Reading from microfiche, a VDT, and a printed page: Subjective fatigue and performance. Hum. Factors 28, 63-73. Google Scholar
- DAINOFF, M. J. 1982. Occupational stress factors in visual display terminal (VDT) operation: A review of empirical research. Behav. Inf. Technol. 1, 141-176.Google Scholar
- DUCHNICKY, R. L., AND KOLERS, P. A. 1983. Readability of text scrolled on visual display terminals as a function of window size. Hum. Factors 25, 683-692.Google Scholar
- ELKERTON, J., WILLIGES, R. C., PITTMAN, J. A., AND ROACH, J. 1982. Strategies of interactive file search. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting, R. E. Edwards, Ed. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., pp. 83-86.Google Scholar
- FABRiZlO, R., KAPLAN, I., AND TEAL, G. 1967. Readability as a function of the straightness of right-hand margins. J. Typograph. Res. 1, 90-95.Google Scholar
- FELKER, D. B. 1980. Document design: A Review of the Relevant Research. American Institutes for Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- FORSTER, K. i. 1970. Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Percep. Psychophys. 8, 215-221.Google Scholar
- FOSTER, J. J., AND BRUCE, J. 1982. Reading upper and lower case on viewdata. Appl. Ergonomics, 13, 145-149.Google Scholar
- GALITZ, W. O. 1985. Handbook of Screen Format Design. 2d ed. QED Information Sciences, Wellesley Hills, Mass.Google Scholar
- GOULD, J. D. 1968. Visual factors in the design of computer-controlled CRT displays. Hum. Factors 10, 359-376.Google Scholar
- GOULD, J. D. 1985. Why do people read more slowly from CRT displays than from paper? Paper presented at the meeting of the Software Psychology Society, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- GOULD, J. D., AND GRISCHKOWSKY, N. 1984. Doing the same work with hard copy and with cathoderay tube (CRT) computer terminals. Hum. Factors 26, 323-337.Google Scholar
- GOULD, J. D., AND GRISCHKOWSKY, N. 1986. Does visual angle of a line of characters affect reading speed? Hum. Factors 28, 165-173.Google Scholar
- GOULD, J. D., ALFARO, L., BARNES, V., FINN, R., GRISCHKOWSKY, N., AND MINUTO, A. 1987a. Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a single-variable explanation. Hum. Factors 29, 269-299. Google Scholar
- GOULD, J. D., ALFARO, L., FINN, R., HAUPT, B., AND MINUTO, A. 1987b. Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Hum. Factors 29, 497-517. Google Scholar
- GRANAAS, M. M., MCKAY, T. D., LANHAM, R. D., HURT, L. D., AND JUOLA, J. F. 1984. Reading moving text on a CRT screen. Hum. Factors 26, 97-104.Google Scholar
- GRANDJEAN, E. AND VIGLIANI, E., Eds. 1980. Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals. Taylor & Francis, London. Google Scholar
- GREGORY, g., AND POULTON, E. C. 1970. Even vetsus uneven right-hand margins and the rate of comprehension in reading. Ergonomics 13, 427-434.Google Scholar
- HANSEN, W. J., DORiNG, R., AND WHITLOCK, L. R. 1978. Why an examination was slower on-line than on paper. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 10, 507-519.Google Scholar
- HARTLEY, J., AND BURNHILL, P. 1971. Experiments with unjustified text. Visible Lang. 3, 265-278.Google Scholar
- HARTLEY, J., AND MILLS, R. L. 1973. Unjustified expriments in typographical research and instructional design. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 4, 120-131.Google Scholar
- HELANDER, M. G., BILLINGSLEY, P. A., AND SCHURICK, J. M. 1984. An evaluation of human factors on visual display terminals in the workplace. In Human Factors Review, F. A. Muckler, Ed. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., pp. 55-129.Google Scholar
- HELANDER, M. G., AND RUPP, B. A. 1984. An overview of standards and guidelines for visual display terminals. Appl. Ergonomics 15, 3, 195.Google Scholar
- HEMINGWAY, J. C., AND ERICKSON, R. A. 1969. Relative efforts of raster scan lines and image subtense on symbol legibility on television. Hum. Factors 11, 331-338.Google Scholar
- HODGE, D. C. 1962. Legibility of a uniform-strokewidth alphabet: I. Relative legibility of upper and lower case letters. J. Eng. Psychol. 1, 34-46.Google Scholar
- HODGE, D. C. 1963. Legibility of a uniform-strokewidth alphabet: II. Some factors affecting the legibility of words. J. Eng. Psychol. 2, 55-67.Google Scholar
- HUDOLESTON, H. F. 1974. A comparison of two 7 x 9 matrix alphanumeric designs for TV displays. Appl. Ergonomics 5, 81-83.Google Scholar
- IBM. 1984. Human Factors of Workstations with Visual Displays. IBM Corporation, San Jose, Calif.Google Scholar
- JUOLA, J. F., WARD, N. J., AND MCNAMARA, T. 1982. Visual search and reading of rapid serial presentations of letter strings, words, and text. J. Exper. Psychol.: General 111,208-227.Google Scholar
- JUST, M. A., AND CARPENTER, P. A. 1987. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Allyn & Bacon, Newton, Mass.Google Scholar
- KAK, A. V. 1981. Relationship between readability of printed and CRT-displayed text. In Proceedings o{ the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting, R. C. Sugarman, Ed. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., pp. 137-140.Google Scholar
- KEENEN, S. A. 1984. Effects of chunking and line length on reading efficiency. Visible Lang. 18, 61-80.Google Scholar
- KOLERS, P. A., DUCHNICKY, R. L., AND FERGUSON, D. C. 1981. Eye movement measurement of readability of CRT displays. Hum. Factors 23, 517-527.Google Scholar
- KRUK, R. $., AND MUTER, P. 1984. Reading of continuous text on video screens. Hum. Factors 26, 339-345.Google Scholar
- LANCASTER, F. W., AND WARNER, A. 1985. Electronic publication and its impact on the presentation of information. In The Technology o{ Text: Principles {or Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text. vol. 2, D. H. Jonassen, Ed. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 292-309.Google Scholar
- MADDOX, M. E. 1980. Two-dimensional spatial frequency content and confusion among dot-matrix characters. Proc. SID 21, 31-40.Google Scholar
- MADDOX, M. E., BURNETI', J. T., AND GUTMANN, J. G. 1977. Font comparisons for 5 x 7 dot matrix characters. Hum. Factors 19, 89-93.Google Scholar
- MALLOY, R. 1983. Videotex brings the world to your doorstep. Byte 8, 41.Google Scholar
- MANSFIELD, V. 1985. Staring at the screen. The Washington Post: A Weekly Journal of Medicine, Health and Psychology 1, 5, 10-11.Google Scholar
- MARTIN, J. G., AND MELTZER, R. H. 1976. Visual rhythms: Report on a method for facilitating the teaching of reading. J. Read. Behav. 8, 153-160.Google Scholar
- MARTIN, J. G., MELTZER, R. H., AND MILLS, C. B. 1978. Visual rhythms: Dynamic text display for learning to read a second language. Visible Lang. 12, 71-80.Google Scholar
- MASSON, M. E. J. 1983. Conceptual processing of text during skimming and rapid sequential reading. Mere. Cognition 11,262-274.Google Scholar
- MATULA, R. A. 1981. Effects of visual display units on the eyes: A bibliography (1972-1980). Hum. Factors, 23, 581-586.Google Scholar
- MERRILL, P. F. 1982. Displaying text on microcomputers. In The Technology o{ Text: Principles {or Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text, D. H. Jonassen, Ed. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 401-414.Google Scholar
- MONK, A. F. 1984. Reading continuous text from a one-line visual display. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 21, 269-277. Google Scholar
- MONK, A. F., AND HULME, C. 1983. Errors in proofreading: Evidence for the use of wordshape in word recognition. Mere. Cognition, 11, 16-23.Google Scholar
- MORAY, N. 1980. Towards an electronic journal, in Processing of Visible Language 2, P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, and H. Bouma, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 401-404.Google Scholar
- MORRISON, R. E., AND RAYNER, K. 1981. Saccade size in reading depends upon character spaces and not visual angle. Percep. Psychophys. 30, 395-396.Google Scholar
- MURCH, G. M. 1984. Physiological principles for the effective use of color. IEEE Cornput. Graph. Appl. 4 (11), 49-54. Google Scholar
- MUTER, P., LATREMOUILLE, $. A., TREURNIET, W. C., AND BEAM, P. 1982. Extended reading of continuous text on television screens. Hum. Factors 24, 501-508.Google Scholar
- NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 1983. Video Displays, Work, and Vision. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- NEAL, A. S., AND DARNELL, M. J. 1984. Text-editing performance with partial-line, partial-page, and full-page displays. Hum. Factors 26, 431-441.Google Scholar
- OHLSSON, K., NILSSON, L., AND RONNSERO, J. 1981. Speed and accuracy in scanning as a function of combinations of text and background colors. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 14, 215-222.Google Scholar
- OL~RON, G., AND TARDIEU, H. 1978. Influence of scrolling up on the recall of texts. In Practical Aspects o{ Memory, M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, and R. N. Sykes, Eds. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla., pp. 137-144.Google Scholar
- PACE, B. J. 1984. Color combinations and contrast reversals on visual display units. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting, M. J. Alluisi, S. de G root, and E. A. Alluisi, Eds. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., pp. 326-331.Google Scholar
- PATERSON, D. G., AND TINKER, M. A. 1931. Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading: VI. Black type versus white type. J. Appl. Psychol. 15, 241-247.Google Scholar
- POTTER, M. C., KROLL, J. F., AND HARRIS, C. 1980. Comprehension and memory in rapid sequential reading. In Attention & Per{orrnance VIII, R. Nickerson, Ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 395-418.Google Scholar
- POULTON, E. C., AND BROWN, C. H. 1968. Rate of comprehension of an existing teleprinter output and of possible alternatives. J. Appl. Psychol. 52, 16-21.Google Scholar
- PYNTE, J., AND NOIZET, G. 1980. Optimal segmentation for sentences displayed on a video screen. In Processing o{ Visible Language 2, P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, and H. Bouma, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 376-385.Google Scholar
- RAOL, G. W. 1980. Experimental investigations for optimal presentation-mode and colours of symbols on the CRT-screen. In Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals, E. Grandjean and E. Vigliani, Eds. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 127-136.Google Scholar
- REYNOLDS, L. 1982. Display problems for Teletext. In The Technology of Text: Principles {or Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text, D. H. Jonassen, Ed. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp 415-437.Google Scholar
- RINGEL, S. AND HAMMER, C. 1964. Information assimilation from alphanumeric displays: Amount and density of information presented. Tech. Rep. TRN141. NTIS No. AD 601973, U.S. Army Personnel Research Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- ROBERTSON, P. J. 1980. A Guide to using color on alphanumeric displays. Tech. Rep. G320-6296-0, IBM Corporation, White Plains, N.Y.Google Scholar
- RUDNICKY, A. I., AND KOLERS, P. A. 1984. Size and case of type as stimuli in reading. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percep. Performance 10, 231-249.Google Scholar
- SAUTER, S. L., GOTTLIEB, M. S., ROHRER, K. M., AND DODSON, V. N. 1983. The well-being of video display terminal users: An exploratory study. Rep. 210-79-0034, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
- SCHWARZ, E., BELDIE, I. P., AND PASTOOR, S. 1983. A comparison of paging and scrolling for changing screen contents by inexperienced users. Hum. Factors 25, 279-282.Google Scholar
- SEKEY, A., AND TIETZ, J. 1982. Text display by "saccadic scrolling." Visible Lang. 17, 62-77.Google Scholar
- SENDERS, J. 1977. An on-line scientific journal. Inf. Sci. 2, 3-9.Google Scholar
- SHNEWERMAN, B. 1980. Software Psychology: Human Factors in Computer and Information Systems. Little, Brown, Boston, Mass. Google Scholar
- SHURTLEFF, D. A. 1974. Legibility research. Proc. SID 15, 41-51.Google Scholar
- SHURTLEFF, D. A. 1980. How to Make Displays Legible. Human Interface Design, La Mirada, Calif.Google Scholar
- SMITH, D. L., ED. 1978. Graphic displays: A human engineering guide {or using color in CRT command and control displays. Independent development program C755, Rep. D66834, Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Space Systems Division, Sunnyvale, Calif.Google Scholar
- SMITH, M. J. 1984. Human factors issues in VDT use: Environmental and workstation design considerations. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 4 (11), 56-63. Google Scholar
- SMITH, S. L. 1979. Letter size and legibility. Hum. Factors 21, 661-670.Google Scholar
- SMITH, S. L. 1982. User-system interface design for computer-based information systems, ESD-TR- 82-132. MITRE, Bedford, Mass.Google Scholar
- SNYOER, H. L., AND MADDOX, M. E. 1978. Information transfer from computer-generated dot-matrix displays. Final Rep. HFL-78-3, NTIS No. AD A063 505. Virginia Polytechnic institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Va.Google Scholar
- SPENCER, H., AND REYNOLDS, L. 1976. Factors , Affecting the Acceptability of Micro{orms as a Reading Medium. Readability of Print Research Unit, Royal College of Art, London.Google Scholar
- STARR, S. J. 1984. Effects of video display terminals in a business office. Hum. Factors 26, 347-356.Google Scholar
- SWITCHENKO, D. M. 1984. Reading from CRT versus paper: The CRT-disadvantage hypothesis reexamined. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting, M. J. Alluisi, S. de Groot, and E. A. Alluisi, Eds. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., pp. 429-430.Google Scholar
- TAYLOR, C. D. 1934. The relative legibility of black and white print. J. Educ. Psychol. 25, 561-578.Google Scholar
- TINKER, M. A. 1955. Prolonged reading tasks in visual research. J. Appl. Psychol. 39, 444-446.Google Scholar
- TINKER, M. A. 1963a. Legibility of Print. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
- TINKER, M. A. 1963b. Influence of simultaneous variation in size of type, width of line, and leading for newspaper type. J. Appl. Psychol. 47, 380-382.Google Scholar
- TINKER, M. A. 1965. Bases {or Effective Reading. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn.Google Scholar
- TINKER, M. A., AND PATERSON, D. G. 1931. Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading: VII. Variations in color of print and background. J. Appl. Psychol. 15, 471-479.Google Scholar
- TOMBAUGH, J. W., ARKIN, M. D., DILLON, R. F., AND FLABOREA, A. 1985. The effect of VDU textpresentation rate on reading comprehension and reading speed. In Proceedings of CHI '85: Human Factors in Computing Systems, L. Borman and B. Curtis, Eds. ACM, New York, pp. 1-6. Google Scholar
- TREURNIET, W. C. 1980. Spacing of characters on a television display. In Processing of Visible Language 2, P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, and H. Bouma, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 365-374.Google Scholar
- TREURNIET, W. C. 1981. Display of text on television. Rep. 705-E, Department of Communications, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
- TROLLIP, S. R., AND SALES, G. 1986. Readability of computer generated fill-justified text. Hum. Factors 28, 159-163.Google Scholar
- TULLIS, T. S. 1983. The formatting of alphanumeric displays: A review and analysis. Hum. Factors 25, 657-682.Google Scholar
- VARTABEDIAN, A. G. 1970. Effects of parameters of symbol formation on legibility. Inf. Dis. 5, 23-26.Google Scholar
- VARTABEDIAN, A. G. 1971. The effects of letter size, case, and generation method on CRT display search time. Hum. Factors 13, 363-368.Google Scholar
- VARTABEmAN, A. G. 1973. Developing a graphic set for cathode ray tube display using a 7 x 9 dot pattern. Appl. Ergonomics 4, 11-16.Google Scholar
- WELDON, L. J., MILLS, C. B., KOVED, L., AND SHNEI- DERMAN, B. 1985. The structure of information in online and paper technical manuals. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting: Vol. 2, R. W. Swezey, Ed. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., pp. 1110-1113.Google Scholar
- WEYER, S. A. 1982. The design of a dynamic book for information search. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 17, 87-107.Google Scholar
- WIGOINS, R. H. 1967. Effects of three typographical variables on speed of reading. J. Typograph. Res. 1, 5-18.Google Scholar
- WILKINS, A. 1986. Intermittent illumination from visual display units and fluorescent lighting affects movement of eyes across text. Hum. Factors 28, 75-81. Google Scholar
- WILLIGES, B. H., AND WILLIGES, R. C. 1981. User considerations in computer-based information systems. NTIS No. ADA 106 194, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Va.Google Scholar
- WITTEN, I. H. 1985. Elements of computer typography. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 23, 623-687.Google Scholar
- WRIGHT, P., AND LiCKORISH, A. 1983. Proofreading texts on screen and paper. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2, 227-235.Google Scholar
- WRIGHT, P., AND LICKORISH, A. 1984. Investigating referees' requirements in an electronic medium. Visible Lang. 18, 186-205.Google Scholar
- ZACHRISSON, B. 1965. Studies in the Legibility of Printed Text. Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Touch-screens are not tangible: fusing tangible interaction with touch glass in readers for the blind
TEI '13: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied InteractionIn this paper we introduce the idea of making touch surfaces of mobile devices (e.g. touch phones and tablets) truly tangible for Individuals with Blindness or Severe Visual Impairment (IBSVI). We investigate how to enable IBSVI to fuse tangible ...
Tactile interfaces for small touch screens
UIST '03: Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technologyWe present the design, implementation, and informal evaluation of tactile interfaces for small touch screens used in mobile devices. We embedded a tactile apparatus in a Sony PDA touch screen and enhanced its basic GUI elements with tactile feedback. ...
Direct manipulation video navigation on touch screens
MobileHCI '14: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & servicesDirect Manipulation Video Navigation (DMVN) systems allow a user to directly drag an object of interest along its motion trajectory and have been shown effective for space-centric video browsing tasks. This paper designs touch-based interface techniques ...
Reviews
Eugen Grecu
The purpose of this up-to-date and well-documented paper is to review empirical studies on the factors that affect the readability of computer screens. It concentrates on research into presentation factors that influence the reading of complex, realistic displays of text. The authors focus on the readability, rather than the legibility, of text on computer screens. (They use “legibility” to refer to the identification of individual characters, and “readability” for the reading of words and sentences.) This paper is divided into five sections. The first section describes research that has compared the readability of computer screens and paper. The next four sections discuss research on features of the screen that may affect the readability of text: the character set, the formatting of the screen, the contrast and color of the characters and background, and the dynamic aspects of the text. This review of research results will help practitioners evaluate the guidelines they are currently using and determine the limitations of the available evidence. By concentrating on what has been found in experimental investigations of readability, areas for further research can be established. The difficulty of writing such a paper is considerable, due to both the large number of references and the synthetic effort required from the authors. The comparative study of paper versus screen readability at the end of the paper must therefore be highly appreciated.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments