|
Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review
of the empirical literature, Dillon, A., Ergonomics, 35 (10), 1297-1326
(1992).
|
About seven years ago, Dillon (1992) reported a survey of the literature
that compared reading from paper with reading from computer-based monitors.
This paper is still referred to by many when discussing both performance
and preference issues related to reading from paper versus monitors.
In general, he found that reading from paper tended to be preferred for
tasks requiring much manipulation and navigation. Also, he reported no
differences between paper and monitors in:
- accuracy,
- comprehension,
- fatigue, and
- the number of eye movements made by subjects.
However, the finding that is probably quoted most often is that silent
reading from paper tended to be reliably faster (20-30%) than reading
from monitors. This observation, which was reported by several studies
in the 1980s, is reported in several current text books and is generally
considered still to be true.
|
|
A comparative evaluation of display technologies
for reading, Gujar, A. U., Harrison, B.L., and Fishkin, K.P., Proceedings
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 527-531
(1998).
|
A recent study by Gujar, Harrison and Fishkin (1998) used a proofreading
task to determine reading speed and comprehension. The authors introduced
word substitution errors into the text, which forced their subjects to
read and understand the text in order to find the errors. The substituted
words varied grammatically from the original word. For example, the noun
"cake" was replaced with the adjective "fake." The
articles were all text, contained no graphics, and were written using
10-point Times Roman font.
Subjects read from a variety of different formats:
- a sheet of paper lying on a desk,
- paper displayed in a frame without glass,
- paper displayed in a frame under glass (to evaluate possible reflection
problems),
- a monochrome monitor,
- a 21" color monitor, or
- a large image projected on a screen using an overhead transparency
They found no statistically significant differences in reading time or
detected errors when reading from the different formats. Even though there
were no performance differences, the subjects rated reading from paper
significantly better than reading from the other 5 conditions.
The new, high resolution monitors allow users to read as fast from screens
as they do from paper. It will be interesting to see how long it will
take before this fact is generally known, and accepted as true by usability
professionals.
|
