The Sensitivity of Response Measures of Alphanumeric Legibility to Variations in Dot Matrix Display Parameters

Abstract

This research evaluated the sensitivity of four observer response measures to variations in the character size and dot luminance of a dot matrix display. Specifically, the research determined the sensitivity of recognition accuracy, response time, tachistoscopic recognition accuracy, and threshold visibility. Alphanumeric characters were presented to six subjects in noncontextual form on a variable-parameter CRT display programmed and driven by a minicomputer.

Recognition accuracy (percent correct response) was found to be the response measure that is most sensitive to the display parameters of character size and dot luminance. Character size, dot luminance, and viewing distance proved to have consistent and significant effects at viewing distances greater than 1.52 m. At lesser viewing distances, these parameters had little effect.

The results suggest that there is no major difference between the display requirements for computer-generated dot matrix displays versus those for conventional CRT displays.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blondel

Rey

Sur la perception des lumieres breves à la limite de leur protee. J. de Phys., 1911, 1, 530–580. Cited by C. H. Graham. Vision and visual perception. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1966, 170–174.

Chapanis

The search for relevance in applied research. In Singleton

W. T.

Fox

J. G.

Whitfield

(Eds.) Measurement of man at work. London: Taylor and Francis, 1971, 1–14.

Cornog

D. Y.

Rose

F. C.

Legibility of alphanumeric characters and other symbols: II. A reference handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication 262–2, 1967.

Giddings

B. J.

Alphanumerics for raster displays. Ergonomics, 1972, 15, 65–72.

Gould

J. D.

Visual factors in the design of computer-controlled CRT displays. Human Factors, 1968, 10, 359–376.

Guilford

J. P.

Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.

Hemingway

J. C.

Erickson

R. A.

Relative effects of raster scan lines and image subtense on symbol legibility on television. Human Factors, 1969, 11, 331–338.

Howell

W. C.

Kraft

C. L.

Size, blur, and contrast as variables affecting the legibility of alphanumeric symbols on radar-type displays. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, Technical Report No. 59–536, September, 1959.

Maddox

M. E.

Prediction of information transfer from computer-generated dot matrix displays. Unpublished master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1977.

10.

Maddox

M. E.

Burnette

J. T.

Gutmann

J. C.

Font comparisons for 5 × 7 dot matrix characters. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 89–93.

11.

McCormick

E. J.

Human factors engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

12.

Myers

J. L.

Fundamentals of experimental design (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972.

13.

Reingold

Display devices: A perspective on status and availability. Proceedings of the Society for Information Display, 1974, 15, 63–73.

14.

Ripley

R. T.

A computer-generated dot-matrix display simulator. Unpublished master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1975.

15.

Shurtleff

D. A.

Studies in television legibility: A review of the literature. Information Display, 1967, 4, 40–45.

16.

VanderKolk

Dot matrix symbology, Proceedings of Symposium on the Human Factors of Dot Matrix Displays, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, July, 1974.

17.

Vartabedian

A. G.

Legibility of symbols on CRT displays. Applied Ergonomics, 1971, 2, 130–132.