Is judging text on screen different from judging text in print? A naturalistic e-mail experiment

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 21-25

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036486959     PISSN: 14703297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13558000110097064     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Dayton, D. (1998) Technical editing on line: the quest for transparent technology, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 28, 1, 3-38.
2. Dillon, A. (1992) Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature, Ergonomics, 35,1297-1326.
3. Dillon, A. (1994) Designing Usable Electronic Text, Taylor and Francis, London.
4. Dommeyer, C.J. and Moriarty E. (2000) Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey: embedded versus attached, International Journal of Market Research, 42, 1, 39-50.
5. Haas, C. (1996) Writing Technology: Studies on the Materiality of Literacy, Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey.
6. Hartley, J. (1994) Designing Instructional Text, 3rd edn, Kogan Page, London.
7. Hartley, J. (1998) The role of printouts in editing text, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 3, 277-82.
8. Hartley, J. and Ganier F. (2000) Which do you prefer? Some observations on preference measures in studies of structured abstracts, European Science Editing, 26, 1, 4-7.
9. Konner, M.D. (1982) The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit, Holt, New York.
10. Rho, Y.J. and Gedeon, T.D. (2000) Academic articles on the Web: reading patterns and formats, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 2, 219-40.
11. Taylor, H. (2000) Does Internet research work? Comparing online survey results with telephone survey, International Journal of Market Research, 42, 1, 51-63.
12. Wilson, W. and Moore, K. (2000) Editing on screen, or paper, or both, European Science Editing, 26, 2, 50-2.