Hirohito Shibata

Effects of paper on page turning: comparison of paper and electronic media in reading documents with endnotes

This study compares the performances of paper and electronic media during a reading task that includes frequent page turning. In the experiment, 18 subjects read multi-page documents aloud while referring to endnotes using paper, a large display, and a small display. Results revealed that reading from paper was 6.8% faster than reading from a large electronic display and 11.4% faster than reading from a small electronic display. No difference was found between scores of recognition tests of important words of documents among the three conditions, which indicates that paper is the most effective medium for people to read text speedily without reducing comprehension. Detailed analyses of the reading process show that, in the Paper condition, people perform both text reading and page-turning simultaneously. However, when using computer displays, reading and turning pages were divided completely and performed separately.

Microscopic analysis of document handling while reading paper documents to improve digital reading device

We conducted microscopic analysis on several frequently observed types of work-related reading to find ways to support each type of reading. We obtained empirical data from video recording, concurrent verbal reporting, and retrospective reporting by 18 participants in 10 target types of reading that use paper. Using these data, first, we categorized the ways people interact with paper documents when reading in detail. We analyzed which types of behaviors were frequently observed in each type of reading based on these categories. We will discuss what kind of support is required for each type of reading by specifying what types of behaviors were frequently observed for certain types of reading.

Do tablets really support discussion?: comparison between paper, tablet, and laptop PC used as discussion tools

Touch-based tablet devices are starting to be used frequently in meetings and places of discussion. However, are tablets really ideal as discussion tools? Or do they actually obstruct communication? To answer these questions, this paper quantitatively compares discussion processes involving paper, an iPad2, and a laptop PC. We performed an experiment where 12 groups of two participants each (24 participants in total) worked collaboratively by referring to documents and using paper, an iPad2, or a laptop PC as presentation media. We observed verbal and non-verbal interaction between participants. First, we investigated the total amount of speech between two participants and found they spoke more when using paper than when using the electronic media. Next, we observed that participants used more demonstrative pronouns when using paper than when using the iPad2 but used more demonstrative pronouns when using the iPad2 than when using the laptop PC. Also, they made more eye contact when using paper than when using the other media. These results suggest that tablets may not currently be the best media to use when ideas should be actively exchanged, sensitivity is required toward other participants in the discussion, or work progress needs to be shared.

Comparison of paper and computer displays in reading including frequent movement between pages

This paper describes experiments to compare reading with paper versus electronic media when reading with frequently moving back and forth between pages. In the first experiment, eighteen participants read aloud multi-page documents with endnotes in three conditions: paper, a large display, and a small display. Results revealed that reading from paper was 6.8% faster than reading from a large computer display and 11.4% faster than reading from a small computer display. Detailed analyses of the reading process showed that participants performed both reading and page-turning simultaneously in the paper condition. However, when using computer displays, reading and turning pages were performed separately. In the second experiment, 12 participants read documents using electronic system with more effective features for page-turning such as an overview of pages and links from reference symbols to notes. However, paper remained the most efficient medium to support reading with endnotes. This indicates that electronic media should be improved to support between-page navigation.

Page Navigation on Paper Books and Electronic Media in Reading to Answer Questions

This paper describes experiments comparing reading performance such as reading speed and the accuracy of tasks in reading to answer questions using different media: paper books, a desktop PC, and a tablet PC. As typical examples of reading of this kind, we considered two scenarios: searching answers from text manuals and searching given photographs from photo books. In two experiments conducted according to the two scenarios, participants performed tasks most quickly using a paper book or a PC. They had trouble flipping through pages with a tablet PC. Although the paper book was inferior to the PC in terms of turning over pages continuously with rapidity, participants performed flexible navigation with the paper book such as starting the navigation from various positions of the book and jumping to the target position straight away without hesitating skipping over the target. Based on these results, we provide suggestions to improve a page navigation feature in electronic media.

Reading from paper versus reading from a touch-based tablet device in proofreading

This paper describes an experiment to evaluate the impact of the use of a touch-based digital reading device in active reading. We compared the performance of proofreading when using paper and when using a touch-based tablet device. Results showed that participants detected more errors when reading from paper than when reading from the tablet device. During reading, when using paper, participants frequently performed the interaction with text, such as pointing to words or sliding their fingers or pens along sentences. This fact suggests that interaction with text plays an important role in proofreading tasks.

Text Touching Effects in Active Reading: The Impact of the Use of a Touch-Based Tablet Device

This paper describes experiments examining the effect of touching interaction with text in active reading through evaluating the impact of the use of a touch-based tablet device. The first experiment compared the performance of proofreading when using paper and when using a touch-based tablet device. Results showed that participants detected more errors when reading from paper than when reading from the tablet device. During reading, when using paper, participants frequently performed the interaction of text touching, such as pointing to words and sliding their fingers or pens along sentences. This fact suggests that touching interaction with text plays an important role in proofreading tasks. To verify this hypothesis, we conducted a second experiment in which participants proofread documents with constrained interaction with paper. Results showed that they detected more errors when they were allowed to interact with text freely than when they were not allowed to interact with text. Considering these results, we discuss practical implications to effectively support active reading with a touch-based tablet device.

Writing blocks: a visualization to support global revising

This paper focuses on the cognitive support of the revising activities of writing, especially the global revising activity. Most of previous writing support systems emphasize the support of content generating activities. As for revising, some of these systems have provided automatic spell check and grammar check features. However, revising should not be confined only to these local superficial changes. In this paper, we aim to support the revising activities through providing a new visualization and interaction that encourages writers to revise globally. We have built a system called Writing Blocks to confirm the feasibility of our approach. Our preliminary user study, which was conducted with three subjects, helped us to gain a perspective on the effectiveness of our approach especially in supporting revising scenarios such as the revising of scripts for time-restricted presentations and the revising of global usage of terms in long documents according to their contexts.

Microscopic analysis of document handling while reading: classification of behavior toward paper document

We conducted a microscopic analysis of work-related reading to find ways to support reading in the workplace. We obtained empirical data from video recording, concurrent verbal reporting, and retrospective reporting of 18 participants in 10 target types of reading using paper. Using these data, we categorized the ways people interact with paper while reading in detail. We will discuss what kinds of support are required for work-related reading.

Docking window framework: supporting multitasking by docking windows

When performing tasks using computers, multiple documents are used with multiple applications. During working with computers, multiple tasks, perhaps involving multiple documents, are switched. This paper presents the Docking Window Framework: an extended multi-window system supporting such multitasking situations. It enables construction of workspaces comprising multiple windows with simple switching of workspaces. Although previous systems emphasized the support of task-switching after workspace construction, the proposed system characteristically supports construction of workspaces through a docking user interface. It also supports operation of multiple windows simultaneously, provides a tile layout of windows to reduce the overhead of window operations, and supports saving and restoration of workspaces. We conducted two experiments to evaluate the system. In window arrangement tasks, participants performed tasks faster using the proposed system than when using a popular window system (Windows XP). Moreover, in task-switching tasks, participants using our system performed multiple tasks in parallel more efficiently.