Effects of Font Size and Reflective Glare on Text-Based Task Performance and Postural Change Behavior of Presbyopic and Nonpresbyopic Computer Users

Abstract

Nineteen young (18-35 year-old) and seven older presbyopic (55-65 year-old, wearing bifocal or progressive glasses) subjects with the same average visual acuity at near distance participated in this full-factorial, repeated measures study with two trial factors: font size (capital letter heights of 1.78, 2.23, and 3.56 mm) and reflective glare. The monitor location was fixed, but subjects were allowed to move their bodies and the chair while performing visually demanding tasks. The productivity improved up to 30% when using a large font size (average visual angle 23.4 arcmin) compared to a smaller font size (14.2 or 16.4 arcmin, p < .0001). The relative contributions of torso flexion (78%), head forward (3%), and chair reposition (4%) to changes in the viewing distance remained constant across font size conditions. Reflective glare had no effect on productivity measures but led to reduction of viewing distance (p < .0001). There were no significant differences between the two age groups.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

I. L.

Bullimore

M. A.

(1991). A new test for the evaluation of disability glare. Optometry and Vision Science: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 68(12), 911– 917.

Ben-Sira

Weinberger

Bodenheimer

Yassur

(1980). Clinical method for measurement of light backscattering from the in vivo human lens. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 19(4), 435–437.

Daum

K. M.

Clore

K. A.

Simms

S. S.

Vesely

J. W.

Wilczek

D. D.

Spittle

B. M.

Good

G. W.

(2004). Productivity associated with visual status of computer users. Optometry (St. Louis, Mo.), 75(1), 33–47.

Gerr

Marcus

Ensor

Kleinbaum

Cohen

Edwards

Gentry

. (2002). A prospective study of computer users: I. Study design and incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41(4), 221– 235.

IESNA Office Lighting Committee. (1993). American National Standard Practice for Office Lighting (p. 63). USA: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, RP-1.

International Organization for Standardization. (1992). Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs). Part 3: Visual Display Requirements.

International Organization for Standardization. (2011). Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction – Part 303: Requirements for Electronic Visual Displays.

Legge

G. E.

Bigelow

C. A.

(2011). Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. Journal of Vision, 11(5):8, 1-22.

Rempel

Willms

Anshel

Jaschinski

Sheedy

J. E.

(2007). The effects of visual display distance on eye accommodation, head posture, and vision and neck symptoms. Human Factors, 49(5), 830-838.

10.

Sheedy

J.E.

Smith

Hayes

(2005). Visual effects of the luminance surrounding a computer display. Ergonomics, 48(9), 1114-1128.

11.

Treaster

Marras

W. S.

Burr

Sheedy

J. E.

Hart

(2006). Myofascial trigger point development from visual and postural stressors during computer work. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 16(2), 115–124.

12.

Whittaker

S. G.

Lovie-Kitchin

(1993). Visual requirements for reading. Optometry and Vision Science: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 70(1), 54-65.

13.

H-C.

(2011). Electronic paper display preferred viewing distance and character size for different age groups. Ergonomics, 54(9), 806-814.

14.

Yager

Aquilante

Plass

(1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38(17), 2527-2531.