Objective: The aim of our study was to investigate which text-background (TB) color combinations improve legibility and pleasantness of texts either presented on a computer screen or projected on a wider surface. Background: Our work stems from the observation that multimedia presentations, even those by professionals in visual disciplines, are often spoiled by illegibility, which affects readability and the pleasantness of attending to such presentations. Methods: We investigated this problem through three experiments. Experiment 1 assessed the best TB color combinations in slides presented on a laptop. Experiment 2 verified the correlation between legibility and pleasantness for TB presentations. Experiment 3 investigated the legibility of a slide projected on a wide screen in different room lighting conditions. In all experiments participants expressed a rating score for stimulus legibility or pleasantness. Results: Experiments 1 and 3 showed that it is best to have a dark text on a light background for both displayed and projected texts. Experiment 2 showed that pleasantness is tightly correlated with legibility, though legibility depends on contrast between text and background. Conclusions: Our findings are not in complete agreement with the literature concerning legibility of text displayed on a computer screen, and they are in contrast with the common belief that for projection purposes it is best to have a light text on a dark background. Applications: Some practical rules on combining TB colors are given to enhance the legibility of presentations, especially important for the legibility of projected texts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bix, L., Lockhart, H., Cardoso, F., & Selke, S. (2003, Spring). The effect of color contrast on message legibility. Journal of Design Communication, 5. RetrievedAugust25, 2008, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JDC/Spring-2003/colorcontrast.html
2.
Buchner, A., & Baumgartner, N. (2007). Text-background polarity affects performance irrespective of ambient illumination and color contrast . Ergonomics, 50, 1036-1063.
3.
Cataliotti, J., & Gilchrist, A. (1995). Local and global processes in surface lightness perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 57, 125-135.
4.
Guilford, J.P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York : McGraw-Hill.
5.
Hall, R., & Hanna, P. (2004). The impact of Web page text-background color combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics and behavioral intention. Behavior and Information Technology, 23, 183-195.
6.
Harley, T. (2001). The psychology of language. Essex, UK: Psychology Press.
7.
Kosslyn, S.M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
Legge, G.E. (2006). Psychophysics of reading in normal and low vision . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
Legge, G.E., Parish, D.H., Luebker, A., & Wurm, L.-H. (1990). Psychophysics of reading 11: Comparing color contrast and luminance contrast. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 7, 2002-2010.
10.
Legge, G.E., & Rubin, G.S. (1986). Psychophysics of reading 4: Wavelength effects in normal and low vision. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 3, 40-51.
11.
Li, X., & Gilchrist, A.L. (1999). Relative area and relative luminance combine to anchor surface lightness values. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 771-785.
12.
Lin, C.-C. (2003). Effects of contrast ratio and text color on visual performance with TFT-LCD. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31, 65-72.
13.
Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., & Wolfinger, R.D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models . Cary, NC: StatisticalAnalysis System Institute.
14.
Liu, Y. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46, 1273-1292.
15.
Norman, D.A. (2004). Emotional design. New York : Basic Books.
16.
Pastoor, S. (1990). Legibility and subjective preference for color combination in text. Human Factors, 32, 157-171.
17.
Peli, E. (1990). Contrast in complex images. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 7, 2032-2040.
18.
Shieh, K.-K., & Lin, C.-C. (2000). Effects of screen type, ambient illumination, and color combination on VDT visual performance and subjective preference. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26, 527-536.
19.
Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
20.
Tinker, M. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
21.
Valdez, P., &Mehrabian,A. ( 1995). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 394-409.
22.
van Schaik, P., & Ling, J. (2001). The effects of frame layout and differential background contrast on visual search performance in Web pages. Interacting with Computers, 13, 513-523.
23.
Zavagno, D., & Caputo, G. (2005). Glowing grays and surface white: The photo-geometric factors of luminosity perception. Perception, 34, 261-274.
