A visual ergonomic evaluation of different screen types and screen technologies with respect to discrimination performance

Applied Ergonomics

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 69-81

  Oetjen, Sophie ^a   Ziefle, Martina ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anisotropy; Discrimination Performance; Notebook LCD

Indexed keywords

ANISOTROPY; CATHODE RAY TUBES; CATHODES; DETERIORATION; ERGONOMICS; SCREENS (SIZING); THIN FILM TRANSISTORS; VISION;

DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE; ELECTRONIC DISPLAY; ERGONOMIC EVALUATION; LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY(LCD); PERFORMANCE DATA; PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT; SCREEN TECHNOLOGY; VISUAL PERFORMANCE;

LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS;

ADULT; ANISOTROPY; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; CATHODE RAY TUBE DISPLAY; CONTRAST; DISPLAY SYSTEM; ERGONOMICS; ERROR; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY; LUMINANCE; MALE; MICROCOMPUTER; NORMAL HUMAN; PHOTOMETRY; RESPONSE TIME; VIEWING ANGLE; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION;

EID: 51349101779     PISSN: 00036870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2008.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Armbrüster C., Ziefle M., and Sutter C. Notebook input devices put to an age test: the usability of trackpoint and touchpad for users over 40 years of age. Ergonomics 50 3 (2007) 426-445
2. Artamonov, O., 2004. X-bit's Guide: Contemporary LCD monitor parameters and characteristics. Available online at: 〈http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide.html〉 (accessed 12.03.07).
3. BITKOM, 2007. Bei der Verbreitung von Personal Computern stehen die USA weltweit an der Spitze. Deutschland belegt im internationalen Vergleich einen Platz im Mittelfeld [Personal computers are widespread in the USA. Compared to the distribution in the USA, Germany ranks at a medium level]. Available online at: 〈http://www.bitkom.org/de/markt_statistik/38511_38546.aspx〉 (accessed 12.03.07).
4. Bjørset H.-H., and Brekke B. The concept of contrast. A short note and a proposal. In: Grandjean E., and Vigliani E. (Eds). Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals (1980), Taylor & Francis, London pp. 23-24
5. Boschman M., and Roufs J. Reading and screen flicker. Nature 372 (1994) 137
6. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), 2002. BMBF fördert "Notebook-Universities" mit 25 Millionen Euro. Studierende verwirklichen mit mobilen Computern modernes Lernen [BMBF funds "notebook-universities" with 25 million €. Students realise modern learning with mobile computing.]. Available online at: 〈http://www.bmbf.de/press/670.php〉 (accessed 25.06.07).
7. Dillon A. Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35 (1992) 1297-1326
8. Dillon A. Designing Usable Electronic Text. second ed. (2004), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
9. Dillon, A., Kleinmann, L., Choi, G.O., Bias, R., 2006. Visual search and reading tasks using clear type and regular displays: two experiments. In: CHI 2006 Proceedings. Visualisation and Search, pp. 503-511.
10. Farrell J.E. Objective methods for evaluating screen flicker. In: Knave B., and Wideback P.-G. (Eds). Work with Display Units (1987), North-Holland, Amsterdam 449-460
11. Gould J.D., Alfaro L., Barnes V., Finn R., Grischkowsky N., and Minuto A. Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: attempts to isolate a single-variable explanation. Human Factors 29 3 (1987) 269-299
12. Gould J.D., Alfaro L., Finn R., Haupt B., and Minuto A. Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors 29 5 (1987) 497-517
13. Gröger, T., Ziefle, M., Sommer, D., 2003. Anisotropic characteristics of LCD-TFTs and their impact on visual performance: everything's superior with TFT's? In: Harris, D., Duffy, V., Smith, M., Stephanidis, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the HCI International 2003, vol. 3, pp. 33-37.
14. Gröger, T., Oetjen, S., Ziefle, M., 2005. Using a more complex task to compare anisotropic effects of LCD-TFT and CRT screens. In: Proceedings of the HCI International 2005. Vol. 1: Engineering Psychology, Health and Computer System Design. Mira Digital Publishing, CD-ROM.
15. Harbison S., and Forrester C. Ergonomics of notebook computers: problems or just progress?. J. Occup. Health Safety 11 (1995) 481-487
16. Heckmeier M., Lüssem G., Tarumi K., and Becker W. Flüssigkristalle für Aktivmatrix-Flachbildschirme [Liquid crystal displays for active matrix flat screens]. Bunsen Mag. 4 5 (2002) 106-116
17. Heuer H., Brüwer M., Römer T., Kröger H., and Knapp H. Preferred vertical gaze direction and observation distance. Ergonomics 34 3 (1991) 379-392
18. Hollands, J.G., Cassidy, H.A., McFadden, S., Boothby, R., 2001. LCD versus CRT displays: visual search for colored symbols. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 1353-1357.
19. Hollands J.G., Parker H.A., McFadden S., and Boothby R. LCD versus CRT displays: a comparison of visual search performance for colored symbols. Hum. Factors 44 2 (2002) 210-221
20. International Organization for Standardization, 1992. ISO 9241-3: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)-Part 3: Visual display requirements (Geneva: ISO).
21. International Organization for Standardization, 2001. ISO 13406-2: Ergonomic requirements for work with visual displays based on flat panels-Part 2: Ergonomic requirements for flat panel displays (Geneva: ISO).
22. Jaschinski W., Bonacker M., and Alshuth E. Accommodation, convergence, pupil diameter and eye blinks at a CRT display flickering near fusion limit. Ergonomics 39 1 (1996) 152-164
23. Kirsch, C., 2004. Laptops als Ersatz für Desktop-PCs. Überall im Büro [Notebooks as a replacement for desktop PCs. The office is everywhere]. iX, 12, pp. 40-45.
24. Küller R., and Laike T. The impact of flicker from fluorescent lighting on well-being performance and physiological arousal. Ergonomics 41 4 (1998) 433-447
25. Menozzi M., Näpflin U., and Krueger H. CRT versus LCD: a pilot study on visual performance and suitability of two display technologies for use in office work. Displays 20 (1999) 3-10
26. Menozzi M., Lang F., Näpflin U., Zeller C., and Krueger H. CRT versus LCD: effects of refresh rate, display technology and background luminance in visual performance. Displays 22 3 (2001) 79-85
27. Oetjen S., and Ziefle M. Effects of anisotropy on visual performance regarding different font sizes. In: Khalid H., Helander M., and Yeo A. (Eds). Work with Computing Systems (2004), Damai Sciences, Kuala Lumpur
28. Oetjen S., and Ziefle M. The effects of LCD's anisotropy on the visual performance of users of different ages. Hum. Factors 49 4 (2007) 619-627
29. Oetjen, S., Ziefle, M., Gröger, T., 2005. Work with visually suboptimal displays-in what ways is the visual performance influenced when CRT and TFT displays are compared? In: Proceedings of the HCI International 2005. Vol. 4: Theories, Models and Processes in Human Computer Interaction. Mira Digital Publishing, CD-ROM.
30. Qin, S.L., Zhong, X.F., Heynderickx, I., Teunissen, C., Lian, Y.G., Xia, J., Yin, H.C., 2006. Perceptually relevant characterization of LCD viewing angle. In: Proceeding of the SID 2006 Symposium, 4-9 June 2006, San Francisco, CA.
31. Saito S., Piccoli B., and Smith M.J. Ergonomic guidelines for using notebook personal computers. Ind. Health 48 4 (2000) 421-434
32. Schlick C., Ziefle M., Park M., and Luczak H. Visual displays. In: Jacko J., and Sears A. (Eds). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications (2007), LEA, Mahwah, NJ 201-228 Chapter 11
33. Sheedy J., and Bergstrom N. Performance and comfort on near-eye computer displays. Optom. Vis. Sci. 79 5 (2002) 306-312
34. Sheedy J., Subbaram M., and Hayes J. Filters on computer displays-effects on legibility, performance and comfort. Behav. Info. Technol. 22 6 (2003) 427-433
35. Stone P.T., Clarke A.M., and Slater A.I. The effect of task contrast on visual performance and visual fatigue at a constant illuminance. Lighting Res. Technol. 12 3 (1980) 144-159
36. Sutter C., and Ziefle M. Interacting with notebook input devices: an analysis of motor performance and users' expertise. Hum. Factors 47 1 (2005) 169-187
37. Vaughan M.W., and Dillon A. Why structure and genre matter for users of digital information: a longitudinal experiment with readers of a web-based newspaper. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64 (2006) 502-526
38. Yeh M., Wickens C.D., and Seagull F.J. Target cuing in visual search: the effects of conformality and display location on the allocation of visual attention. Hum. Factors 41 4 (1999) 524-542
39. Ziefle M. Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Hum. Factors 40 4 (1998) 554-568
40. Ziefle M. User productivity and different screen technologies: CRT screens with high refresh rates vs. LCD displays?. Display Search Monitor 6 14 (2001) 11-14
41. Ziefle M. Users with body heights above and below the average: how adequate is the standard VDU setting with respect to visual performance and muscular load?. In: Luczak H., and Zink K.J. (Eds). Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management (2003), IEA, Santa Monica 489-494
42. Ziefle M., Gröger T., and Sommer D. Visual costs of the inhomogeneity of luminance and contrast by viewing LCD-TFT screens off-axis. Int. J. Occup. Safety Ergon. (JOSE) 9 4 (2003) 515-525
43. Ziefle M., Oehme O., and Luczak H. Visuelle Information und Leistung bei Head-Mounted Displays mit erweiterter Realität [Visual information and performance at head-mounted displays with virtual reality]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaften 59 (2005) 331-344