The objective of this study was to establish basic reading performance that could lead to useful design recommendations for print display text formats and layouts for the improvement of reading and comprehension performance of print text, such as academic writings, books, and newspapers, of Arabic language.
Background:
Readability of English print text has been shown to be influenced by a number of typographical variables, including interline spacing, column setting and line length, and so on. Therefore, it is very important to improve the reading efficiency and satisfaction of print text reading and comprehension by following simple design guidelines. Most existing research on readability of print text is oriented to build guidelines for designing English texts rather than Arabic. However, guidelines built for English script cannot be simply applied for Arabic script because of orthographic differences.
Method:
In the current study, manipulating interline spacing and column setting and line length generated nine text layouts. The reading and comprehension performance of 210 native Arab students assigned randomly to the different text layouts was compared.
Results:
Results showed that the use of multicolumn setting (with medium or short line length) affected comprehension achievement but not reading and comprehension speed. Participants’ comprehension scores were better for the single-column (with long line length) than for the multicolumn setting. However, no effect was found for interline spacing.
Conclusion:
The recommendations for appropriate print text format and layout in Arabic language based on the results of objective measures facilitating reading and comprehension performance is a single-column (with long line length) layout with no relevance of the interline spacing.
AbdulhadiS.IbrahimR.EviatarZ. (2011). Perceptual load in the reading of Arabic: Effects of orthographic visual complexity on detection. Writing Systems Research, 3, 117–127.
2.
Abu-RabiaS. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 39–59.
3.
AlsumaitA.Al-OsaimiA. (2009). Arab children’s reading preference for different online fonts. In JackoJ. A. (Ed.), Human-computer interaction: Part IV, HCII, LNCS 5613 (pp. 3–11). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
4.
AndreveyV.MartynovA. (2000). Effects of splitting text into multiple columns. Dept of Computer Science Class Project, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD. Available at: http://www.otal.umd.edu/SHORE2000/multicol/index.html
5.
BaileyR. W. (2002). The optimal line length for reading prose text. Retrieved from http://www.webusability.com
6.
BernardJ. B.ScherlenA.C.Vitu-ThibaultF.CastetE. (2007). Effect of line spacing on reading speed in normally-sighted subjects with an artificial scotoma. Journal of Vision, 7, 518.
BoumaH. (1980). Visual reading processes and the quality of text displays. In GrandjeanE.ViglianiE. (Ed.), Ergonomic aspects of visual display terminals (pp. 101–114). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
10.
BruceV.GreenP. (1985). Visual perception: Physiology, psychology and ecology. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
ChanA. H. S.LeeP. S. K. (2005). Effect of display factors on Chinese reading times, comprehension scores and preferences. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24, 81–91.
ChaparroB.BernardM. (2001). Finding information on the web: Does the amount of white space really matter? In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Usability Professionals’ Association Conference. Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/21/whitespace.asp
14.
ChuangC. R. (1982). The effects of Chinese text layouts on reading speed. In KaoH. S. R.ChengC. (Eds.), Psychological aspects of Chinese language (pp. 219–226). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Company.
15.
CreedA.DennisI.NewsteadS. (1987). Proof-reading on VDUs. Behaviour & Information Technology, 6, 3–13.
16.
de BruijnD.de MulS.van OostendorpH. (1992). The influence of screen size and text layout on the study of text. Behaviour & Information Technology, 11, 71–78.
17.
DowhowerS. (1987). Aspects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389–406.
18.
DuchnickyR. L.KolersP. A. (1983). Readability of text scrolled on a visual display terminal as a function of window size. Human Factors, 25, 683–692.
19.
DysonM. C. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 377–393.
20.
DysonM. C.HaselgroveM. (2001). The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 585–612.
21.
DysonM. C.KippingG. J. (1998). The effects of line length and method of movement on patterns of reading from screen. Visible Language, 32, 151–181.
22.
EhriL. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
23.
EviatarZ.IbrahimR.GanayimD. (2004). Orthography and the hemispheres: Visual and linguistic aspects of letter processing. Neuropsychology, 18, 174–184.
24.
FosterJ. J. (1970). A study of the legibility of one and two column layouts for B.P.S. publications. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 23, 113–114.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 241–258.
26.
HartleyJ. (1994). Designing instructional text (3rd ed.). London, UK: Kogan.
HendersonJ. M. (1992). Visual attention and eye movement control during reading and scene perception. In RaynerK. (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading (pp. 260–283). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
30.
HughesL.WilkinsA. J. (2002). Reading at a distance: Implications for the design of text in children’s big books. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 213–226.
31.
KolersP. A.DuchnickyR. L.FergusonD. C. (1981). Eye movement measurement of readability of CRT displays. Human Factors, 23, 517–527.
32.
KrukR. S.MuterP. (1984). Reading continuous text on video screens. Human Factors, 26, 339–345.
33.
LaBergeD.BrownV. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96, 101–124.
34.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
McPhersonM. A.NunesJ. M.ZafeiriouG. (2003, June). New tutoring skills for online learning: Are e-tutors adequately prepared for e-learning delivery?Paper presented at EDEN 2003 The Quality Dialogue: Integrating Quality Cultures in Flexible, Distance and E-Learning, Rhodes, Greece.
37.
MorrisonR. E.InhoffA. W. (1981). Visual factors and eye movements in reading. Visible Language, 15, 129–146.
38.
MuterP.MauruttoP. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: The paperless office revisited?Behaviour & Information Technology, 10, 257–266.
39.
National Cancer Institute. (2003). Research-based web design and usability guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.usability.gov
40.
NealA.DarnellM. (1984). Text editing performance with partial line, partial page and full page displays. Human Factors, 26, 431–441.
41.
OborneD. J.HoltonD. (1988). Reading from screen versus paper: There is no difference. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, 1–9.
42.
PerfettiC. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
PerfettiC. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
PoultonE. C. (1959). Effects of printing types and formats on the comprehension of scientific journals. Nature, 184, 1824–1825.
SieroffE.PosnerM. I. (1988). Cueing spatial attention during processing of words and letter strings in normals. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 451–472.
47.
SpencerH. (1969). The visible word. London, UK: Lund Humphries.
48.
SpoolJ. M.ScanlonT.SchroederW.SnyderC.DeAngeloT. (1997). Web site usability: A designer’s guide. North Andover, MA: User Interface Engineering.
49.
TanA.NicholsonT. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 276–288.
50.
TinkerM. A. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
51.
TinkerM. A. (1965). Bases for effective reading. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
52.
WolfM.Katzir-CohenT. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239.
53.
YuleV. (1988). The design of print for children: Sales appeal and user appeal. Reading, 22, 96–105.
54.
ZaphirisP.KurniawanS. H. (2001). Effects of information layout on reading speed differences between paper and monitor presentation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1210–1214). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
