Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35 (10), 1297--1326.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... and (despite a dizzying bevy of statistical tests) program inspection tools [411, 412] Weak results also invade related comparative tests such as visual versus textual information [112, 332] or analogical versus propositional representations [365] and hypertext versus traditional book forms [182,716]. Although there are many possible causes of weak results, two possibilities are related to the use of simplistic questions: the effect size is too small relative to the scale of the question being asked, and the human processes being observed are themselves just too unpredictable to answer the ....

Dillon, A. Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1992, pp. 1297--1326.

....are o#ered for the reasons behind the users comments regarding what they did and did not like about the demonstrated techniques. 3 Chapter 2 Page Turning Description and Problems While much research has been carried out in the past examining issues related to reading text from monitors [1], such as anti aliasing, speed and accuracy of reading, and fatigue, very little research has currently been done for the reading of music. One relevant area was investigated by Picking [2] who examined the e#ects of animation on reading static (that is, not moving) music, and the accuracy and ....

A. Dillon. Reading from papers versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10):1297 -- 1326, 1992.

....again tend to be time consuming and disruptive. THE CHALLENGES OF ACTIVE READING ONLINE People typically print long documents to read them, rather than reading them on the computer. Why does this happen What affordances does paper provide that are lacking online A number of researchers [5, 12, 18, 21] have studied these issues; we summarize applicable results below. Tangibility Tangibility refers to the physical properties of sheets or stacks of paper that allow them to be held, moved, folded, rotated, etc. Readers move their documents around in space to improve legibility [5] to adjust ....

....[5, 12, 18, 21] have studied these issues; we summarize applicable results below. Tangibility Tangibility refers to the physical properties of sheets or stacks of paper that allow them to be held, moved, folded, rotated, etc. Readers move their documents around in space to improve legibility [5], to adjust perspective or gain objective distance [12] and to ease and speed up handwriting [11] In contrast, reading online typically means reading from a monitor on a desk. The physical nature of paper also affords effortless navigation [18] For example, readers can look at the previous ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Dillon, A. (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), pp.1297-1326.

.... disturb (Fisher Tan, 1989) The reading efficiency of Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) is close to that of normal page reading (Juola, Ward McNamara, 1982) Times Square Format (TSF) seems to be as good as RSVP (Kang Muter, 1989) Enhancing Web Information 28 In addition, Dillon (1992), Mills and Weldon (1986) and Muter (1996) have also summarised some factors affecting readability. In summary, computerised information presentation can provide services to users which have not been possible with paper. Computers can mimic the static properties of paper. Furthermore, they support ....

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature, Ergonomics, vol. 35, 1297-1326.

.... 1987; Tullis, 1988) and sometimes disturb (Fisher Tan, 1989) The reading efficiency of Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) is close to that of normal page reading (Juola, Ward McNamara, 1982) Times Square Format (TSF) seems to be as good as RSVP (Kang Muter, 1989) In addition, Dillon (1992), Mills and Weldon (1987) and Muter (1996) have also summarised some factors affecting readability. In summary, computerised information presentation can provide services to users which have not been possible with paper. Computers 24 can mimic the static properties of paper. Furthermore, they ....

DILLON, A. 1992, Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature, Ergonomics, 35, 1297-1326.

....comparisons of behaviour with paper versus screen based media. For example, a substantial subset of this literature is concerned with the presentation of text in controlled laboratory settings and focuses on issues such as ease of reading, navigation through text, and manipulation of text (see Dillon, 1992 for a review) Other laboratory based comparisons concern the writing and composition of text on paper versus screen (Card et al. 1985; Gould, 1980; Haas, 1989) In addition to laboratory studies, observational, interview, and questionnaire techniques have been used to examine how people use ....

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, Vol. 35(10), 1297-1326.

....would be sufficient to answer the general questions, and that the specific questions would indicate the depth of understanding. In his survey of the literature about reading from computer screens, Dillon noted that suitable comprehension measures for reading material are difficult to devise. Dil92, p. 1304] The summaries are the closest task to a real world application. Researchers often make notes as they read for inclusion in an annotated bibliography or otherwise for future reference. 5.3.1 Experimental participants The participants in the experiment were recruited from the university ....

....Those data were 59 not used in the current experiment but may be used for future investigation. 5.3.2 Data collection All subjects used the Netscape browser 4 displaying on a high resolution monitor. The text was black on a white background since that is believed to give the best performance [Dil92, p. 1314] Before beginning each session, subjects were encouraged to adjust the screen s position, contrast, and brightness as well as the text window s size, to their liking. Figure 5.1 shows the setup of materials before a S began the experiment. A simulated experiment is depicted in Figure ....

Andrew Dillon. Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10):1297 -- 1326, 1992. 114

....of their own behaviour to enrich our understanding of reading through the readers perspective. The Literature A fairly substantial body of literature comparing the reading of paper versus on line documents can be found in the psychological, human factors, and ergonomics literature (see [4] for a comprehensive review) The majority of studies focus on outcome measures of reading, such as speed [15, 23] proof reading accuracy [8, 23, 3] and comprehension [15, 6] A lesser effort has been devoted to looking at process differences between reading on paper and reading on screen ....

....[9] have shown that improvements in screen technology lessen these differences, and may even eliminate them [16] One reason sometimes cited for the failure to uncover significant differences between paper and on line reading is the insensitivity of the measures used. For example, Dillon [4] has argued that this may account for the fact that the literature has generally suggested no negative effects of electronic text on comprehension. An important question this raises is: If the differences in performance between paperbased reading and on line reading are that subtle, is it the case ....

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, Vol. 35(10), 1297-1326.

.... in the office is growing at a rate of 20 annually [22] This is partly attributed to the following factors: ffl It is still easier to read on paper than on a computer screen [11] ffl Browsing, navigating and manipulating large documents is easier with paper than with computer based documents [6], ffl People get a better sense of the text when working with and reviewing paper documents [11] This evolution has led to the current situation, where our information is stored in a hybrid way, partly in paper form and partly in electronic form. Different associations between pieces of ....

Dillon, A.: "Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature", Ergonimics, vol. 35(10), pp. 1297-1326, 1992.

....are free to find as large a workspace as required and to spread all the documents around in a manner comfortable to their working method. The second problem concerns reading text from a screen. There have been a number of studies comparing reading from screen versus reading from paper, and Dillon [7] provides a good review of these. He suggests that evidence points to a 20 30 reduction in speed when reading from screen compared to reading from paper, although the different experimental factors make it difficult to reach a certain conclusion. In terms of accuracy, there appears to be no ....

A. Dillon. Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10):1297--1326, October 1992.

No context found.

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35 (10), 1297--1326.

No context found.

A. Dillon. Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10):1297--1326, 1992.

No context found.

A. Dillon. Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10):1297--1326, 1992.

No context found.

Andrew Dillon. Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10):1297--1326, 1992.

No context found.

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading From Paper Versus Screens: A Critical Review of the Empirical Literature. Ergonomics, 35(10): 1297-1326.

No context found.

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, Vol. 35(10), 1297-1326.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC