Font Size and Viewing Distance of Handheld Smart Phones

Purpose. The use of handheld smart phones for written communication is becoming ubiquitous in modern society. The relatively small screens found in these devices may necessitate close working distances and small text sizes, which can increase the demands placed on accommodation and vergence. Methods. Font size and viewing distance were measured while subjects used handheld electronic devices in two separate trials. In the first study (n = 129), subjects were asked to show a typical text message on their own personal phone and to hold the device “as if they were about to read a text message.” A second trial was conducted in a similar manner except subjects (n = 100) were asked to view a specific web page from the internet. Results. For text messages and internet viewing, the mean font size was 1.1 M (range, 0.7 to 2.1 M) and 0.8 M (range, 0.3 to 1.4 M), respectively. The mean working distance for text messages and internet viewing was 36.2 cm (range, 17.5 to 58.0 cm) and 32.2 cm (range, 19 to 60 cm), respectively. Conclusions. The mean font size for both conditions was comparable with newspaper print, although some subjects viewed text that was considerably smaller. However, the mean working distances were closer than the typical near working distance of 40 cm for adults when viewing hardcopy text. These close distances place increased demands on both accommodation and vergence, which could exacerbate symptoms. Practitioners need to consider the closer distances adopted while viewing material on smart phones when examining patients and prescribing refractive corrections for use at near, as well as when treating patients presenting with asthenopia associated with nearwork.

[1]  Chris Chase,et al.  Accommodation response and visual discomfort , 2009, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[2]  Mark Rosenfield,et al.  Accommodation and convergence during sustained computer work. , 2011, Optometry.

[3]  J. Sivak Optometry and vision science. , 1989, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[4]  Lyndon Jones,et al.  Patient Use of Smartphones to Communicate Subjective Data in Clinical Trials , 2011, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  Nick Bilton I Live in the Future & Here's How It Works: Why Your World, Work, and Brain Are Being Creatively Disrupted , 2010 .

[6]  V. Dreyer,et al.  Visual acuity. , 1974, Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde.

[7]  Thomson Wd,et al.  Eye problems and visual display terminals—the facts and the fallacies , 1998 .

[8]  V. Rideout,et al.  Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds , 2010 .

[9]  G L Mitchell,et al.  Prospective Quantification of Near Work Using the Experience Sampling Method , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[10]  Nong Ye,et al.  Interaction of Screen Distances, Screen Letter Heights and Source Document Distances , 1996, Interact. Comput..

[11]  Rossi Am,et al.  Video display terminal use and reported health symptoms among Massachusetts clerical workers , 1987 .

[12]  J M Carey The efficacy of visual therapy. , 1986, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[13]  W D Thomson,et al.  Eye problems and visual display terminals—the facts and the fallacies , 1998, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[14]  Robert W. Massof,et al.  Distributions of Print Sizes in U.S. Newspapers , 1997 .

[15]  Gary S. Rubin,et al.  Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity , 2005 .

[16]  Nancy P. Wiggins,et al.  Diagnosing and Treating Computer-Related Vision Problems, , 2003 .

[17]  William M. Lyle,et al.  Borish???s Clinical Refraction , 1999 .