How Screen Magnification with and Without Word-Wrapping Affects the User Experience of Adults with Low Vision

Most users with low vision benefit from enlarged content in documents. One method for enlarging web content is using screen magnification software (SMS). This typically requires horizontal scrolling. Another enlargement method uses web browser zoom controls. If the author uses a coding technique like responsive web design (RWD), browser zoom enables automatic word wrapping and no horizontal scrolling. The purpose of the present study was to compare how these two different magnification methods affect reading comprehension and visual fatigue of people with low vision when reading on a computer screen. Participants read passages and answered comprehension questions on a computer. Each participant used either SMS or RWD to enlarge content. Performance (accuracy to reading comprehension questions and time-on-task) and measures of user experience (ratings of usability, visual fatigue, and nausea) were obtained. Although no differences in reading comprehension were obtained, participants reported higher levels of usability and lower levels of nausea when reading with RWD for about an hour as compared to when reading with SMS. Based on post-study interviews with participants, the nausea was likely due to the need to scroll horizontally for extended periods of time. Thus, use of SMS without a means to eliminate or reduce horizontal scrolling for the user can lead to reading discomfort and lower user experiences for adults with low vision.

[1]  Zhenyu Huang,et al.  A Usability Analysis of Company Websites , 2007, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Daniela Zambarbieri,et al.  Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books , 2012, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[3]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature , 1992 .

[4]  Jennifer Little Kegler,et al.  E‐readers, Computer Screens, or Paper: Does Reading Comprehension Change Across Media Platforms? , 2013 .

[5]  Mark Rosenfield,et al.  Blink Patterns: Reading from a Computer Screen versus Hard Copy , 2014, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[6]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading. XIX. Hypertext search and retrieval with low vision , 2002, Proc. IEEE.

[7]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  A framework of assistive pointers for low vision users , 2000, Assets '00.

[8]  M. Pedrotti,et al.  E-Readers and Visual Fatigue , 2013, PloS one.

[9]  Alasdair King,et al.  Screen Magnifiers: Evolution and Evaluation , 2003, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[10]  Ethan Marcotte.  Responsive Web Design , 2011 .

[11]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading—II. Low vision , 1985, Vision Research.

[12]  Kim-Phuong L. Vu,et al.  Computer Accessibility: How Individuals with Low Vision Adjust the Presentation of Electronic Text for Academic Reading , 2015 .

[13]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Visual search-based design and evaluation of screen magnifiers for older and visually impaired users , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Chia-Fen Chi,et al.  A Comparison of Seven Visual Fatigue Assessment Techniques In Three Data-Acquisition VDT Tasks , 1998, Hum. Factors.