Angle of Hard Copy and Text-Editing Performance

Abstract

Three experiments evaluated the effect of angle of hard copy on text-editing performance. In the first, as the angular discrepancy between the hard copy and VDT screen increased, so did editing times and errors; experienced computer users generally outperformed naive users. The second experiment replicated the first but added text highlighting and a secondary task involving cancellation of a text/background screen reversal as factors. This study confirmed many of the results of the first. The secondary task response times showed consistent but nonsignificant effects of angle. Whether or not the line currently being edited was highlighted did not affect performance. The results of the third experiment suggested that having the hard copy orthogonal to the line of sight is important; in addition, it should also be adjacent to the VDT screen. These data argue for adjacent configurations that are normal to the line of sight. Subjective preferences generally supported this contention.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bhatnager, V. , Drury, C. G. , and Schiro, S. G. (1985). Posture, postural discomfort, and performance. Human Factors, 27, 189–200.

Cushman, W. (1986). Reading from microfiche, a VDT, and the printed page: Subjective fatigue and performance. Human Factors, 28, 63–74.

Fisher, D. L. , and Tan, K. C. (1989). Visual displays: The highlighting paradox. Human Factors, 31, 17–30.

Gould, J. D. , and Alfaro, L. (1984). Revising documents with text editors, handwriting-recognition systems, and speech-recognition systems. Human Factors, 26, 391–406.

Gould, J. D. , Alfaro, L. , Barnes, V. , Finn, R. , Grischkowsky, N. , and Minuto, A. (1987). Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a singlevariable explanation. Human Factors, 29, 269–300.

Gould, J. D. , Alfaro, L. , Finn, R. , Haupt, B. , and Minuto, A. (1987). Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29, 497–518.

Gould, J. D. , and Grischkowsky, N. (1986). Does visual angle of a line of characters affect reading speed?. Human Factors, 28, 165–174.

Grandjean, E. (1987a). Design of VDT workstations. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1359–1397). New York: Wiley.

Grandjean, E. (1987b). Ergonomics in computerized offices. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.

10.

Hill, S. G. , and Kroemer, K. H. E. (1986). Preferred declination of the line of sight. Human Factors, 28, 127–134.

11.

Judd, K. W. , and Brand, J. L. (April, 1990). Text editing performance and angle of hard copy. Presented at the Western Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California.

12.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

13.

Kroemer, K. H. E. (1988). VDT workstation design. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 521–539). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

14.

Liebowitz, H. W. , Shina, K. , and Hennessy, H. R. (1972). Oculomotor adjustments and size constancy. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 497–500.

15.

Neal, A. S. , and Darnell, M. J. (1984). Text-editing performance with partial-line, partial-page, and full-page displays. Human Factors, 26, 431–442.

16.

Posner, M. I. , and Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.

17.

Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64, 153–181.

18.

Stevens, S. S. (1961). To honor Fechner and repeal his law. Science, 133, 80–86.

19.

Wagner, M. , Baird, J. C. , and Fuld, K. (1989). Transformation model of the moon illusion. In M. Hershenson (Ed.), The moon illusion (pp. 147–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.