🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43835@linus.UUCP> sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org (Boyle) writes:
>In article <928@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes:
>> research ...  that indicated all CRTs caused a 25% decrease in
>> reading comprehension by comparison to the printed page.
>> ... could this be true ... ? does anyone
>>know of the research that was alluded to?


> 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

> 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.

Also:

Bender 87 Bender, W., R. A. Crespo, P. J.  Kennedy,  and  R.
          Oakley,  ``CRT  Typeface  Design and Evaluation,''
          Proceedings of the  Human  Factors  Society,  31st
          Annual Meeting, 1987, pp. 1311-1314.

Farrell 88Farrell, J. E. and A. E. Fitzhugh ``Image  Quality
          of  Digital Characters,'' Supplement to Investiga-
          tive Opthalmology and  Visual  Science,  1988,  In
          Press.

Gould 84  Gould, J. D. and N. Grischkowsky, ``Doing the Same
          Work  with  Hard  Copy  and  with Cathode-Ray Tube
          (CRT) Computer Terminals,'' Human Factors,  Volume
          26, Number 3, June 1984, pp. 323-337.
 
Gould 87b Gould, J. D. et al., ``Reading is Slower from  CRT
          Displays  than  from  Paper: Attempts to Isolate a
          Single-Variable  Explanation,''   Human   Factors,
          Volume 29, Number 3, June 1987, pp. 269-299.
-- 
Avi Naiman
avi@dgp.toronto.edu