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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied ergonomics 2016-07, Vol.55, p.149-155
Hauptverfasser: Goodman-Deane, Joy, Waller, Sam, Latham, Keziah, Price, Holly, Tenneti, Raji, Clarkson, P. John
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