2015
DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2015.1025706
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing visibility, legibility and comprehension for interactive whiteboards (IWBs) vs. computers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The unframed cluster was further divided to 2 subclusters U1 and U2, in which the icons differed with regard to the number of gear elements. U1 included icons depicting singular elements (icon 1-14) whereas U2 included icons depicting multiple elements (icon [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Thus, the attribute for this level was named complexity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The unframed cluster was further divided to 2 subclusters U1 and U2, in which the icons differed with regard to the number of gear elements. U1 included icons depicting singular elements (icon 1-14) whereas U2 included icons depicting multiple elements (icon [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Thus, the attribute for this level was named complexity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most previous research on the effects of color on interface icons has focused on the identification of colors or color combinations capable of maximizing visibility impact. This issue has been referred to as legibility in some studies, whereas other researchers have described it as noticeability, selectability, or salience . Most of this research is based on tasks aimed at assessing the degree to which various color conditions affect the accuracy and efficiency of visual searches .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assess their text comprehension, participants had to respond to six questions (two surface, two paraphrases, and two inferences) probing three levels of representation (Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983; Kintsch et al, 1990; McNamara et al, 1996; Penttinen et al, 2013; Megalakaki et al, 2016; Porion et al, 2016). The surface level is a literal representation and corresponded to the memorization of the words or sentences as they appeared in the text, but not their meaning.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beier's definition of visibility resembles the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) definition for graphic symbols. ISO (9241-3, 1992) defines visibility as "the visual properties of a character or a symbol that determine the facility with which it can be recognized" (as quoted by Megalakaki et al 2016Megalakaki et al , 1632. Furthermore, the ISO method for testing perceptual quality (ISO 9186-2:2008(E)) emphasizes that before the meaning of a symbol can be understood its elements must be identifiable.…”
Section: Source: Uspc and Authormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The visual properties that influence pictogram legibility are for example color, size, contrast, stroke, shape and style. Legibility furthermore depends on the context in which it is shown (medium, distance, luminance, reflection) and the person who sees it (eye maturity and vision) (Kovačević, Brozović, and Bota 2014, Wogalter, Conzola, and Smith-Jackson 2002, Megalakaki et al 2016.…”
Section: Source: Uspc and Authormentioning
confidence: 99%