Kentaro Takano
Hirohito Shibata
ABSTRACT
This paper describes two experiments that compare paper and computer displays in cross-reference reading for multiple documents. The first experiment quantitatively showed the superiority of paper regarding reading speed and error-detection rate. To investigate the reason for this, in the second experiment, we microscopically analyzed the process of reading, focusing on users' interaction with documents. Results showed that pointing to text is frequently performed and takes less time moving documents horizontally when using paper. Considering the results, we discuss methodologies to improve electronic reading devices.
- Adler, A., Gujar, A., Harrison, B., O'Hara, K. and Sellen, A. A diary study of work-related reading: design implications for digital reading devices. In Proc. CHI 1998, ACM Press (1998), 241--248. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Buchanan, G. and Loizides, F. Investigating document triage on paper and electronic media. In Proc. ECDL 2007, (2007), 416--427. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dillon, A. Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35, 10 (1992), 1297--1326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Haupt, B. and Minuto, A. Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29, 5 (1987), 497--517. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N. and Minuto, A. Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a single-variable explanation. Human Factors, 29, 3 (1987), 269--299. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge, MA, MIT Press (1993).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Haber, J., Nacenta, M. A. and Carpendale, S. Paper vs. tablets: the effect of document media in co-located collaborative work. In Proc. AVI 2014, ACM Press (2014), 86--96. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hong, M., Piper, A. M., Weibel, N., Olberding, S. And Hollan, J. Microanalysis of active reading behaviour to inform design of interactive desktop workspaces. In Proc. ITS 2012, ACM Press (2012), 215--224. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kandogan, E. and Shneiderman, B. Elastic Windows: Evaluation of multi-window operations. In Proc. CHI 1997, ACM Press (1997), 250--257. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marshall, C. and Brush, A. J. Exploring the Relationship between Personal and Public Annotations. In Proc. JCDL 2004, (2004), 349--357. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marshall, C. and Bly, S. Turning the page on navigation. In Proc. JCDL 2005, (2005), 225--234. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marshall, C. Reading and writing the electronic book. Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services (2009). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Morris, R. M., Brush, A. J. and Meyers, R. B. Reading Revisited: Evaluating the Usability of Digital Display Surfaces for Active Reading Tasks. In Proc. IEEE Tabletop, 11 (2007), 79--86.Google Scholar
- Müller, H., Gove, J. and Webb, J. Understanding tablet use: a multi-method exploration. In Proc. MobileHCI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. iPad and Kindle reading speeds. (2010). {http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindlereading html}Google Scholar
- Noyes, J. M. and Garland, K. J. Computer- vs. paper based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics 51, 9 (2008), 1352--1375.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O'Hara, K. and Sellen, A. J. A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proc. CHI 1997, ACM Press (1997), 335--342. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pearson, J., Buchanan, G. and Thimbleby, H. Designing for Digital Reading. Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and Services (2013).Google Scholar
- Richardson, J., Dillon, A., McKnight, C. The effect of window size on reading and manipulating electronic text. In E. Megaw (ed.) Contemporary ergonomics, London, Taylor and Francis. (1989), 474--479.Google Scholar
- Sellen, A. J. and Harper, R. J. The myth of the paperless office. The MIT Press (2001). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shibata, H. and Omura, K. Effects of paper in moving and arranging documents: A comparison between paper and electronic media in cross-reference reading for multiple documents. The Journal of Human Interface Society, 12, 3(2010), 301--311. {in Japanese}Google Scholar
- Shibata, H., Takano, K., and Omura K. Comparison of paper and computer displays in reading including frequent movement between pages. In Proc. OzCHI 2014, ACM Press (2014), 549--558. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shibata, H., Takano, K. and Tano, S. Text Touching Effects in Active Reading: The Impact of the Use of a Touch-Based Tablet Device. In Proc. INTERACT 2015, (2015), 559--576.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Siio, I. and Tsujita, H. Mobile interaction using paperweight metaphor. In Proc. UIST 2006, ACM Press (2006), 111--114. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Takano, K., Shibata, H. and Omura, K. Evaluation of electronic reading devices focusing on turning pages. The Journal of the Human Interface Society, 14, 1 (2012), 89--100. {in Japanese}.Google Scholar
- Takano, K., Shibata, H., and Omura, K.: Microscopic analysis of document handling while cross-reference reading for multiple documents, The Journal of the Human Interface Society, 14, 4(2012), 487--496. {in Japanese}.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Effects of paper on cross-reference reading for multiple documents: Comparison of reading performances and processes between paper and computer displays
Recommendations
Comparison of paper and computer displays in reading including frequent movement between pages
OzCHI '14: Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of DesignThis paper describes experiments to compare reading with paper versus electronic media when reading with frequently moving back and forth between pages. In the first experiment, eighteen participants read aloud multi-page documents with endnotes in ...
Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis
AbstractThis meta-analysis looked at 17 studies which focused on the comparison of reading on screen and reading on paper in terms of reading comprehension and reading speed. The robust variance estimation (RVE)- based meta-analysis models ...
Highlights- Reading on paper is better than reading on screen in terms of reading comprehension.
Effects of paper on page turning: comparison of paper and electronic media in reading documents with endnotes
EPCE'11: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomicsThis study compares the performances of paper and electronic media during a reading task that includes frequent page turning. In the experiment, 18 subjects read multi-page documents aloud while referring to endnotes using paper, a large display, and a ...
Comments