Differences in vision performance in different scenarios and implications for design
To design accessibly, designers need good, relevant population data on visual abilities. However, currently available data often focuses on clinical vision measures that are not entirely relevant to everyday product use. This paper presents data from a pilot survey of 362 participants in the UK, cov...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Applied ergonomics 2016-07, Vol.55, p.149-155 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 155 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 149 |
container_title | Applied ergonomics |
container_volume | 55 |
creator | Goodman-Deane, Joy Waller, Sam Latham, Keziah Price, Holly Tenneti, Raji Clarkson, P. John |
description | To design accessibly, designers need good, relevant population data on visual abilities. However, currently available data often focuses on clinical vision measures that are not entirely relevant to everyday product use. This paper presents data from a pilot survey of 362 participants in the UK, covering a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design. The results from the different measures are compared, and recommendations are given for relative text sizes to use in different situations. The results indicate that text needs to be 17–18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing, and a further 20% larger when users are expected to wear their everyday vision setup rather than specific reading aids.
•We present data from a survey of visual acuity with 362 participants.•We use a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design.•We give recommendations for text sizes to use in different situations.•Text needs to be about 18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing.•It needs to be a further 20% larger if users are not going to use reading glasses. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.001 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1790943147</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0003687016300199</els_id><sourcerecordid>1775177989</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-dc4affadc38dd40d26b119f168ffcc2a36b6a47aa0edab3da8bbbe9529fb28e13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1qGzEUhUVpqJ20b1DKQDfdzETSaGakTaA4zQ8YsnHWQiNdGRnPyJXGhrx9rrGbRRYlK3Ev3zk60iHkO6MVo6y93lRmB2kdK45TRXlFKftE5kx2vFSMt5_JnFJal63s6Ixc5rzBUQrWfCEz3irVUNHMyeo2eA8JRgu5CGNxCDnEsUBnH9NgcH3cujM0FdnCaFKIuTCjK8Kw2wZrJpTkAgWFgxzW41dy4c02w7fzeUWe7_6sFg_l8un-cfF7WdqGdVPprDDeG2dr6Zygjrc9Y8qzVnpvLTd127dGdMZQcKavnZF934NquPI9l8DqK_Lr5LtL8e8e8qSHgAG3WzNC3GfNOkWVqJnoPoB2mKlTUiH68x26ifs04kOQkqyuBSZASpwom2LOCbzepTCY9KIZ1ceC9EafCtLHgjTlGgtC2Y-z-b4fwL2J_jWCwM0JAPy4Q4Cksw3HelxIYCftYvj_Da9J86Sg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781334529</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Differences in vision performance in different scenarios and implications for design</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Goodman-Deane, Joy ; Waller, Sam ; Latham, Keziah ; Price, Holly ; Tenneti, Raji ; Clarkson, P. John</creator><creatorcontrib>Goodman-Deane, Joy ; Waller, Sam ; Latham, Keziah ; Price, Holly ; Tenneti, Raji ; Clarkson, P. John</creatorcontrib><description>To design accessibly, designers need good, relevant population data on visual abilities. However, currently available data often focuses on clinical vision measures that are not entirely relevant to everyday product use. This paper presents data from a pilot survey of 362 participants in the UK, covering a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design. The results from the different measures are compared, and recommendations are given for relative text sizes to use in different situations. The results indicate that text needs to be 17–18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing, and a further 20% larger when users are expected to wear their everyday vision setup rather than specific reading aids.
•We present data from a survey of visual acuity with 362 participants.•We use a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design.•We give recommendations for text sizes to use in different situations.•Text needs to be about 18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing.•It needs to be a further 20% larger if users are not going to use reading glasses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-6870</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-9126</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26995045</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AERGBW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Differences ; Ergonomics ; Female ; Humans ; Inclusive design ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pilot Projects ; Product design ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Task Performance and Analysis ; Text size ; United Kingdom ; Vision, Ocular - physiology ; Visual ability ; Visual Field Tests ; Visual Perception ; Visual task performance ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Applied ergonomics, 2016-07, Vol.55, p.149-155</ispartof><rights>2016 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Jul 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-dc4affadc38dd40d26b119f168ffcc2a36b6a47aa0edab3da8bbbe9529fb28e13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-dc4affadc38dd40d26b119f168ffcc2a36b6a47aa0edab3da8bbbe9529fb28e13</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8018-7706</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687016300199$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26995045$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goodman-Deane, Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waller, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latham, Keziah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Holly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tenneti, Raji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarkson, P. John</creatorcontrib><title>Differences in vision performance in different scenarios and implications for design</title><title>Applied ergonomics</title><addtitle>Appl Ergon</addtitle><description>To design accessibly, designers need good, relevant population data on visual abilities. However, currently available data often focuses on clinical vision measures that are not entirely relevant to everyday product use. This paper presents data from a pilot survey of 362 participants in the UK, covering a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design. The results from the different measures are compared, and recommendations are given for relative text sizes to use in different situations. The results indicate that text needs to be 17–18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing, and a further 20% larger when users are expected to wear their everyday vision setup rather than specific reading aids.
•We present data from a survey of visual acuity with 362 participants.•We use a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design.•We give recommendations for text sizes to use in different situations.•Text needs to be about 18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing.•It needs to be a further 20% larger if users are not going to use reading glasses.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Differences</subject><subject>Ergonomics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inclusive design</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Product design</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Task Performance and Analysis</subject><subject>Text size</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Vision, Ocular - physiology</subject><subject>Visual ability</subject><subject>Visual Field Tests</subject><subject>Visual Perception</subject><subject>Visual task performance</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0003-6870</issn><issn>1872-9126</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1qGzEUhUVpqJ20b1DKQDfdzETSaGakTaA4zQ8YsnHWQiNdGRnPyJXGhrx9rrGbRRYlK3Ev3zk60iHkO6MVo6y93lRmB2kdK45TRXlFKftE5kx2vFSMt5_JnFJal63s6Ixc5rzBUQrWfCEz3irVUNHMyeo2eA8JRgu5CGNxCDnEsUBnH9NgcH3cujM0FdnCaFKIuTCjK8Kw2wZrJpTkAgWFgxzW41dy4c02w7fzeUWe7_6sFg_l8un-cfF7WdqGdVPprDDeG2dr6Zygjrc9Y8qzVnpvLTd127dGdMZQcKavnZF934NquPI9l8DqK_Lr5LtL8e8e8qSHgAG3WzNC3GfNOkWVqJnoPoB2mKlTUiH68x26ifs04kOQkqyuBSZASpwom2LOCbzepTCY9KIZ1ceC9EafCtLHgjTlGgtC2Y-z-b4fwL2J_jWCwM0JAPy4Q4Cksw3HelxIYCftYvj_Da9J86Sg</recordid><startdate>20160701</startdate><enddate>20160701</enddate><creator>Goodman-Deane, Joy</creator><creator>Waller, Sam</creator><creator>Latham, Keziah</creator><creator>Price, Holly</creator><creator>Tenneti, Raji</creator><creator>Clarkson, P. John</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U2</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8018-7706</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160701</creationdate><title>Differences in vision performance in different scenarios and implications for design</title><author>Goodman-Deane, Joy ; Waller, Sam ; Latham, Keziah ; Price, Holly ; Tenneti, Raji ; Clarkson, P. John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-dc4affadc38dd40d26b119f168ffcc2a36b6a47aa0edab3da8bbbe9529fb28e13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Differences</topic><topic>Ergonomics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inclusive design</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Product design</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Task Performance and Analysis</topic><topic>Text size</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Vision, Ocular - physiology</topic><topic>Visual ability</topic><topic>Visual Field Tests</topic><topic>Visual Perception</topic><topic>Visual task performance</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goodman-Deane, Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waller, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latham, Keziah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Holly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tenneti, Raji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarkson, P. John</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><jtitle>Applied ergonomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goodman-Deane, Joy</au><au>Waller, Sam</au><au>Latham, Keziah</au><au>Price, Holly</au><au>Tenneti, Raji</au><au>Clarkson, P. John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Differences in vision performance in different scenarios and implications for design</atitle><jtitle>Applied ergonomics</jtitle><addtitle>Appl Ergon</addtitle><date>2016-07-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>55</volume><spage>149</spage><epage>155</epage><pages>149-155</pages><issn>0003-6870</issn><eissn>1872-9126</eissn><coden>AERGBW</coden><abstract>To design accessibly, designers need good, relevant population data on visual abilities. However, currently available data often focuses on clinical vision measures that are not entirely relevant to everyday product use. This paper presents data from a pilot survey of 362 participants in the UK, covering a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design. The results from the different measures are compared, and recommendations are given for relative text sizes to use in different situations. The results indicate that text needs to be 17–18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing, and a further 20% larger when users are expected to wear their everyday vision setup rather than specific reading aids.
•We present data from a survey of visual acuity with 362 participants.•We use a range of vision measures of particular relevance to product design.•We give recommendations for text sizes to use in different situations.•Text needs to be about 18% larger for comfortable rather than perceived threshold viewing.•It needs to be a further 20% larger if users are not going to use reading glasses.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26995045</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.001</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8018-7706</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-6870 |
ispartof | Applied ergonomics, 2016-07, Vol.55, p.149-155 |
issn | 0003-6870 1872-9126 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1790943147 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Differences Ergonomics Female Humans Inclusive design Male Middle Aged Pilot Projects Product design Surveys and Questionnaires Task Performance and Analysis Text size United Kingdom Vision, Ocular - physiology Visual ability Visual Field Tests Visual Perception Visual task performance Young Adult |
title | Differences in vision performance in different scenarios and implications for design |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-17T20%3A56%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differences%20in%20vision%20performance%20in%20different%20scenarios%20and%20implications%20for%20design&rft.jtitle=Applied%20ergonomics&rft.au=Goodman-Deane,%20Joy&rft.date=2016-07-01&rft.volume=55&rft.spage=149&rft.epage=155&rft.pages=149-155&rft.issn=0003-6870&rft.eissn=1872-9126&rft.coden=AERGBW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1775177989%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781334529&rft_id=info:pmid/26995045&rft_els_id=S0003687016300199&rfr_iscdi=true |