1987
DOI: 10.1080/01449298708901814
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proof-reading on VDUs

Abstract: Two experiments are reported which compared proof-reading performance across three different modes of presentation. The results of Experiment I indicated that proof-reading accuracy was significantly worse on a VDU than on paper, with a photograph of the VDU display producing intermediate performance. It was also demonstrated that substitutions of visually similar errors were harder to detect than other error types. The results of Experiment 2 replicated these findings, but failed to find any difference betwee… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
35
0
4

Year Published

1989
1989
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
35
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Setting a task in which participants identify spelling or typographical errors is difficult due to inconsistency in the misspellings used and difficulty in measuring the degree of change in word shape. These types of test also promote skimming behaviour [7]. It has also been found that readers can differ in their ability to detect typographical errors [13].…”
Section: Taskmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Setting a task in which participants identify spelling or typographical errors is difficult due to inconsistency in the misspellings used and difficulty in measuring the degree of change in word shape. These types of test also promote skimming behaviour [7]. It has also been found that readers can differ in their ability to detect typographical errors [13].…”
Section: Taskmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two most common alphanumeric screens displayed 25 lines of 80 columns or 32 lines of 80 columns (Creed et al 1987). A crude method of changing type size was to change the 'character density', which resulted in characters of the same height but different widths.…”
Section: Character Densitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One vs. two columns Creed et al (1987) included a two column format in their comparison of proof reading on screen and paper, to see whether performance could be facilitated on the screen. They used texts which filled three screens and compared two columns of 30 characters wide and a separation of 10 characters with one column of 70 characters; both contained 25 lines.…”
Section: Columnsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Carmel distinguishes three types of browsing: (1) search-oriented browsing-finding and reviewing information relevant to a fixed task; (2) review browsing-reviewing to integrate information in the presence of transient goals; and (3) scan-browsing-scanning (and not reviewing) for integrating information with transient goals [9]. There is a significant body of research that indicates that users experience a myriad of difficulties with electronic documents that are not apparent with paper, such as loss of reading speed [10], lower accuracy [11], and many related affective factors. Within hyperlinked documents, the problems are exacerbated since the nonlinear format of most information adds significant cognitive overhead to the task [12], [13].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%