Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1962 comp.cog-eng:929
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!amdahl!pyramid!prls!philabs!linus!mbunix!sboyle
From: sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org (Stephen V. Boyle)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.cog-eng
Subject: References: Reading from CRT vs. Paper
Message-ID: <43835@linus.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jan 89 14:28:17 GMT
References: <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> <edAWg54Cmn1010gUyXQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <928@novavax.UUCP>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org (Boyle)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Mass.
Lines: 34

In article <928@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes:
>	Next, in a casual conversation about displays, a friend cited
>research he'd read that indicated all CRTs caused a 25% decrease in
>reading comprehension by comparison to the printed page.  At the time
>I just nodded my head, but now I want to know:  could this be true, or
>is this true in some fashion?  More to the point, perhaps, does anyone
>know of the research that was alluded to?
>

It's true (in some fashion), although at least one study has demonstrated that 
reading from a CRT can be nearly as fast and accurate as from paper, depending 
on image quality. The applicable paper is:

Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Finn, R., Haupt, B., Minuto, A., and Salaun, J. 
    (1987). Why reading was slower from CRT displays than from paper. 
    Proceedings of ACM CHI + GI, 1987, 7-11

The above is also available separately from ACM: ACM-0-89791-213-6/87/0004/0007
$0.75/copy.

Also see:

Cushman, W. H. (1986). Reading from microfiche, a VDT, and the printed page;
    subjective fatigue and performance. Human Factors, 28, 63-73.

Gould, J. D., (1986) Why is reading slower from CRT displays than from paper?
    Proceedings of the Annual Human Factors Society Meeting, Dayton, Ohio,
    October, 1986, 834-836.

----------
Steve Boyle             				The MITRE Corporation
sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org					UNIX Systems
(617) 271-7030						Burlington Road
							Bedford, MA. 01730