The objective of this research was to compare the readability of slanted and vertically segmented numerals with the readability of the numeral design recommended in most human engineering guides. The specific variable investigated was the accuracy with which the numbers could be read at three exposure times. Results indicated that the readability of the slanted segmented numerals was no better than that of the vertical segmented numerals. Both forms of segmented displays were significantly inferior to the conventional numerals in readability. It was concluded that segmented displays, as presently designed, should not be used where accuracy is critical and exposure time is severely limited.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlluisiE. A.MartinH. B.An informational analysis of verbal and motor responses to symbolic and conventional arabic numerals. Journal of Applied-Psychology, 1958, 42, 79–84.
2.
AlluisiE. A.MullerP. F.Rate of information transfer with seven symbolic visual codes: Motor and verbal responses. USAF: WADC TR No. 56–226, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio, May 1956.
3.
AtkinsonW. H.CrumleyL. M.WillisM. P.A study of the requirements for letters, numbers, and markings to be used on trans-illuminated aircraft control panels. V: The comparative legibility of three fonts for numerals. USN Air Materiel Equipment Laboratory Report TED No. NAMEL-609, Part 5, Philadelphia, Pa., June 1952.
4.
BuschowK. L.Readability of digital readout displays. Lockheed-Georgia Company, Human Engineering Special Studies Memorandum No. 10, Marietta, Ga., November 1966.
5.
CohenJ.WebbI. B.An experiment on the coding of numerals for tape presentation. USAF: WADC TR No. 54–86, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio, December 1953.
6.
FriedC.A human factors evaluation of seven digital readout indicators. U.S. Army Ordnance Human Engineering Laboratories, Technical Memorandum 5–60, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Md., July 1960.
7.
FoleyP. J.Evaluation of angular digits and comparisons with a conventional set. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1956, 40, 178–180.
8.
GibneyT. K.Legibility of segmented versus standard numerals: A review. USAF: AMRL-TR-67-116, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio, June 1967.
9.
GibneyT. K.Legibility of segmented versus standard numerals: the influence of the observer's task. USAF: AMRL-TR-68-124, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio, August 1968.
10.
HughesC. L.Variability of stroke width within digits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 364–368.
11.
LansdellH.Effects of form on the legibility of numbers. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1954, 8, 77–79.
12.
ShurtleffD.Design problems in visual displays. Part 1. Classical factors in the legibility of numerals and capital letters. USAF: ESD-TR-66-62, Electronic Systems Division, L. G. Hanscom AFB, Bedford, Massachusetts, June 1966.
