Barbara S. Chaparro

Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text

Times New Roman and Arial typefaces in 10- and 12-point, dot-matrix and anti-aliased format conditions were compared for readability (accuracy, reading speed, and accuracy/ reading speed), as well as perceptions of typeface legibility, sharpness, ease of reading, and general preference. In assessing readability, the 10-point anti-aliased Arial typeface was read slower than the other type conditions. Examining perceptions of typeface legibility, sharpness, and ease of reading detected significant effects for typeface, size, and format. Overall, the 12- point dot-matrix Arial typeface was preferred to the other typefaces. Recommendations for appropriate typeface combinations for computer-displayed text are discussed.

Evaluating websites for older adults: adherence to 'senior-friendly' guidelines and end-user performance

Older adults in the US are the fastest-growing demographic, and also the largest-growing group of internet users. The aim of this research was to evaluate websites designed for older adults in terms of (i) how well they adhere to ‘senior-friendly’ guidelines and (ii) overall ease of use and satisfaction. In Experiment I, 40 websites designed for older adults were heuristically evaluated based on their adherence to usability guidelines derived by the National Institute on Aging and the National Library of Medicine. In Experiment II, three websites with varying levels of guideline compliance were evaluated by older adults in a usability test. Results from this study indicate that the website most compliant with the ‘senior-friendly’ guidelines resulted in higher task success, but did not result in significantly better efficiency, satisfaction, or preference. These findings demonstrate the importance of using both guidelines and usability testing when designing websites for older adults.

Examining children's reading performance and preference for different computer-displayed text

This study investigated how common online text affects reading performance of elementary school-age children by examining the actual and perceived readability of four computer-displayed typefaces at 12- and 14-point sizes. Twenty-seven children, ages 9 to 11, were asked to read eight childrens passages and identify erroneous/substituted words while reading. Comic Sans MS, Arial and Times New Roman typefaces, regardless of size, were found to be more readable (as measured by a reading efficiency score) than Courier New. No differences in reading speed were found for any of the typeface combinations. In general, the 14-point size and the examined sans serif typefaces were perceived as being the easiest to read, fastest, most attractive, and most desirable for school-related material. In addition, participants significantly preferred Comic Sans MS and 14-point Arial to 12-point Courier. Recommendations for appropriate typeface combinations for children reading on computers are discussed.

Texting while driving: Is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?

Research indicates that using a cell phone to talk or text while maneuvering a vehicle impairs driving performance. However, few published studies directly compare the distracting effects of texting using a hands-free (i.e., speech-based interface) versus handheld cell phone, which is an important issue for legislation, automotive interface design and driving safety training. This study compared the effect of speech-based versus handheld text entries on simulated driving performance by asking participants to perform a car following task while controlling the duration of a secondary text-entry task. Results showed that both speech-based and handheld text entries impaired driving performance relative to the drive-only condition by causing more variation in speed and lane position. Handheld text entry also increased the brake response time and increased variation in headway distance. Text entry using a speech-based cell phone was less detrimental to driving performance than handheld text entry. Nevertheless, the speech-based text entry task still significantly impaired driving compared to the drive-only condition. These results suggest that speech-based text entry disrupts driving, but reduces the level of performance interference compared to text entry with a handheld device. In addition, the difference in the distraction effect caused by speech-based and handheld text entry is not simply due to the difference in task duration.

Texting while driving using google glass: Promising but not distraction-free

Texting while driving is risky but common. This study evaluated how texting using a Head-Mounted Display, Google Glass, impacts driving performance. Experienced drivers performed a classic car-following task while using three different interfaces to text: fully manual interaction with a head-down smartphone, vocal interaction with a smartphone, and vocal interaction with Google Glass. Fully manual interaction produced worse driving performance than either of the other interaction methods, leading to more lane excursions and variable vehicle control, and higher workload. Compared to texting vocally with a smartphone, texting using Google Glass produced fewer lane excursions, more braking responses, and lower workload. All forms of texting impaired driving performance compared to undistracted driving. These results imply that the use of Google Glass for texting impairs driving, but its Head-Mounted Display configuration and speech recognition technology may be safer than texting using a smartphone.

Examining Automatic Text Presentation for Small Screens

This exploratory study compared three types of automatic text presentation for small screen interfaces—rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), three lines, and ten-lines of text—at fast, medium and slow speeds for differences in reading comprehension, satisfaction, and preference. The results revealed a significant main effect of presentation speed, favoring the slowest speed. A marginal main effect of presentation method was also found, favoring RSVP and the ten-lines of text presentation. The readers were equally satisfied with all three methods of presentation.

Smartphone Text Input Method Performance, Usability, and Preference With Younger and Older Adults

Objective: User performance, perceived usability, and preference for five smartphone text input methods were compared with younger and older novice adults. Background: Smartphones are used for a variety of functions other than phone calls, including text messaging, e-mail, and web browsing. Research comparing performance with methods of text input on smartphones reveals a high degree of variability in reported measures, procedures, and results. This study reports on a direct comparison of five of the most common input methods among a population of younger and older adults, who had no experience with any of the methods. Method: Fifty adults (25 younger, 18–35 years; 25 older, 60–84 years) completed a text entry task using five text input methods (physical Qwerty, onscreen Qwerty, tracing, handwriting, and voice). Entry and error rates, perceived usability, and preference were recorded. Results: Both age groups input text equally fast using voice input, but older adults were slower than younger adults using all other methods. Both age groups had low error rates when using physical Qwerty and voice, but older adults committed more errors with the other three methods. Both younger and older adults preferred voice and physical Qwerty input to the remaining methods. Handwriting consistently performed the worst and was rated lowest by both groups. Conclusion: Voice and physical Qwerty input methods proved to be the most effective for both younger and older adults, and handwriting input was the least effective overall. Application: These findings have implications to the design of future smartphone text input methods and devices, particularly for older adults.

Examining the Role of Gender in Video Game Usage, Preference, and Behavior

Since coming into mainstream culture in the 1970s, video games have become increasingly popular. While both men and women play video games, game companies have begun developing games specifically for women that, unfortunately, adhere to stereotypes about females (i.e., pink, fashion, and shopping). This study aims to help game developers better understand the gaming patterns of gamers, both male and female, through a questionnaire which asks questions about video game usage, preferences, behaviors, and spending habits. Results reveal that men overwhelmingly played more violent video games than women. However, women tend to play both violent and non-violent almost equally. Male gamers were more likely than female gamers to be drawn to games from the Strategy, Role Playing, Action, and Fighting genres whereas female gamers were more likely than male gamers to play games from the Social, Puzzle/Card, Music/Dance, Educational/Edutainment, and Simulation genres. Overall, more men than women treated playing video game as their primary hobby, while women were more likely to regard playing video games as a less important hobby after other more important hobbies such as watching television.

Recall and Recognition of Static vs. Animated Banner Advertisements

The most common medium for advertising on the World Wide Web (WWW) is through the use of banners. This study investigated recall and recognition of animated and static online banner advertisements. It was found that regardless of a banners animation state, fewer than half the participants were able to recall the presence of an ad. Overall recall was lower than recognition, however, participants unable to successfully recall the ads were still able to effectively recognize them. Results also suggest that the use of animation may enhance user memory of banner advertisements.

The development and validation of the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS)

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and psychometrically validate a new instrument that comprehensively measures video game satisfaction based on key factors. Background: Playtesting is often conducted in the video game industry to help game developers build better games by providing insight into the players’ attitudes and preferences. However, quality feedback is difficult to obtain from playtesting sessions without a quality gaming assessment tool. There is a need for a psychometrically validated and comprehensive gaming scale that is appropriate for playtesting and game evaluation purposes. Method: The process of developing and validating this new scale followed current best practices of scale development and validation. As a result, a mixed-method design that consisted of item pool generation, expert review, questionnaire pilot study, exploratory factor analysis (N = 629), and confirmatory factor analysis (N = 729) was implemented. Results: A new instrument measuring video game satisfaction, called the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS), with nine subscales emerged. The GUESS was demonstrated to have content validity, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity. Conclusion: The GUESS was developed and validated based on the assessments of over 450 unique video game titles across many popular genres. Thus, it can be applied across many types of video games in the industry both as a way to assess what aspects of a game contribute to user satisfaction and as a tool to aid in debriefing users on their gaming experience. Application: The GUESS can be administered to evaluate user satisfaction of different types of video games by a variety of users.