[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/Paper exper.txt

[Janne V. Kujala]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Changes by:     Janne V. Kujala <address@hidden>        03/02/26 05:58:48

Modified files:
        Paper          : exper.txt 

Log message:
        readability exper

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt.diff?tr1=1.2&tr2=1.3&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt
diff -u manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt:1.2 manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt:1.3
--- manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt:1.2     Tue Feb 25 12:15:58 2003
+++ manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt Wed Feb 26 05:58:48 2003
@@ -54,13 +54,37 @@
 -------------------------------------
 
 - objective: show that readablity does not suffer much
-- means: show that text size has much stronger effect on readability
-  than the presence of background texture
+- means: show that text size has much stronger effect on reading speed
+  than the presence of a background texture
 
-    - 2 test cases: with white bg or texture bg 
-    - each subject reads a number of (perhaps 4) texts on the two types of
-      backgrounds and the time is measured
-    - font size is varied between texts and/or subjects
-      (or should the same text be read in different sizes?)
-    - is the memory effect stronger than the variation between different texts?
-    
+    - 2 test cases: white background and texture background
+    - each subject reads 24 texts (length approx. 15 s) on the 
+      two types of backgrounds and the time is measured
+    - 12 different font sizes are used, ranging from about 4mm to 2cm;
+      for each font size, there are two texts
+    - the subjects are in two groups and, for each text, 
+      the order of the two test cases is reversed between the groups
+
+- desired results
+ 
+    - draw a graph of reading speed as a function of font size for 
+      both cases
+    - the transition from readable to unreadable should occur only slightly 
+      sooner for the texture background when the font size decreases;
+      for sizes over the threshold, the reading speed should be 
+      approximately the same for both cases
+      
+ISSUES:  
+     - what readability/reading speed experiment literature is relevant?
+     - can the reading time for that short texts be measured 
+       accurately enough?
+     - how to control the "quality" of reading? 
+          - trust the subject to read carefully?
+          - read aloud?
+          - ask questions afterwards?
+     - would it be better to use different texts for the two test cases?
+       (i.e., is the memory effect stronger than the variation between 
+       the texts)
+     - is the total of 2 * 6 subjects = 12 trials for each 
+       (font size, test case) pair enough to compensate the 
+       memory effect and to obtain small enough variance?