International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 156e161

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

A comparative ergonomics study: Performing reading-based tasks

on a large-scale tabletop vs. laptop
Binfeng Li a, Wei Zhang a, *, Ronggang Zhou b, Chengyun Yang a, Zhihong Li a
a
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In certain newer computer applications, such as the Microsoft SurfaceÒ, the system usually has a large
Received 5 February 2011 screen and is horizontally placed. Accordingly, different ergonomic considerations must be addressed in
Received in revised form these new applications. In this study, several ergonomic aspects of two typical systems were experi-
28 August 2011
mentally measured and compared: a large-scale tabletop (LST) with a 47-inch LCD screen vs. a 14-inch
Accepted 4 October 2011
Available online 24 October 2011
regular laptop. The measurements included user-preferred view area and field of view, brightness,
background color design, reading and answering task completion time, as well as subjective indices to
measure users’ comfort, fatigue, perceived easiness, perceived efficiency, and overall satisfaction. The
Keywords:
Large-scale tabletop
results show that reading-based task performance and users’ subjective indices on an LST were signif-
Humanecomputer interface icantly lower than on a laptop, whereas background color preference was similar. Relevance to industry:
Usability Future LST application designs must address these differences in order to improve effectiveness, effi-
Ergonomics ciency, and user satisfaction.
Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The aim of this study is to investigate important ergonomics

Recent technological development has enabled and resulted in
new ways of humanecomputer interaction. Newly developed
tabletops, such as the Microsoft’s SurfaceÒ system, enable the use
of a computer as an enhanced traditional table, with its display
horizontally placed as the table surface (Dietz and Leigh, 2001;
Matsushita et al., 2004; Shi et al., 2003; Wilson, 2005). Usually,
such novel systems bring about new interaction modals, such as
touch and move. These devices have shown success in combining
interactive computer systems and traditional discussion tables
to promote both face-to-face group interactions (discussions)
and userecomputer interactions (Forlines et al., 2007; Terrenghi
et al., 2007).
Face-to-face is a natural discussion scenario, and a computer can
provide required documents to promote in-depth discussion.
Decisions made within the group can be conveniently saved as
electronic documents and can be easily shared and distributed.
Some large-scale tabletop (LST) systems, even at sizes of meters by
meters (see photos of uTable at http://pi.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/), have
been developed to enable over ten people to have a conference or
process documents around a “table” (Shi et al., 2008).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 10 6279 2257; fax: þ86 10 6279 4399.
E-mail address: zhangwei1968@gmail.com (W. Zhang).
issues that have arisen regarding LSTs. This will be accomplished
through an experimental comparison with a regular laptop
computer for a typical reading-based task. The LST display is
different from a laptop display in both size (large vs. medium) and
orientation (horizontally vs. nearly vertically). Because of current
technical and/or economic constraints, the LST screen usually has
lower resolution (dots per inch, DPI) than a regular laptop screen.
The examined ergonomic aspects include both objective indices
(i.e., user defined/preferred reading area and field of view (FOV),
brightness, color, and task completion time) and subjective evalu-
ations (i.e., comfort, perceived easiness of use, fatigue, efficiency,
and overall satisfaction). The findings may provide insights into
LSTs and help in designing LSTs with better usability.
2. Literature review
Although several tabletop systems have been developed and
commercialized, there has been limited literature addressing the
ergonomic issues with these technology systems. Scott et al. (2003)
examined user requirements for collaborative interactions for
existing digital tabletop systems, which resulted in eight tabletop
technology guideline recommendations - technology must: (1)
support interpersonal interaction, (2) support fluid transitions
between activities, (3) support transitions between personal and
group work, (4) support transitions between tabletop collaboration

0169-8141/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2011.10.003
 B. Li et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 156e161
and external work, (5) support the use of physical objects, (6)
provide shared access to physical and digital objects, (7) consider
the appropriate arrangements of users, and (8) support simulta-
neous user actions. Their critical analysis also revealed several
important directions for future research.
Reading electronic documents on a computer differs from
reading paper documents on a table (O’Hara and Sellen, 1997).
Accordingly, research has shown that the angle of a screen has
a strong impact on humanecomputer interaction and fatigue or
long-term injury. Other research has recommended center place-
ment of a display approximately 15 below horizontal eye level
because it allows the operator to assume a comfortable and natural
posture (Sanders and McCormic, 1993; Villanueva et al., 1996).
Because of the lack of adjustment allowed with LSTs, Leavitt (1995)
reported that eyestrain symptoms may occur in up to 75% of all
horizontal display users.
On the other hand, prior research on VDTs (video display
terminal) users indicates the influence of several display factors
(including display type, ambient illumination, screen brightness,
text and background colors, and display contrast) on human
performance, fatigue, and injury (Chen and Lin, 2004; Humar et al.,
2008; Lin, 2003, 2005; Marmaras et al., 2008; Menozzi et al., 2001;
Wang and Chen, 2003; Wu and Chen, 2009). The brightness level of
monitors affects users with vision impairment and other eye-
related problems. Glare is a major factor that causes discomfort
and possible reduced performance (Sanders and McCormic, 1993;
Shieh, 2000; Shieh and Lin, 2000). Similarly, the brightness of
a horizontally placed screen must be studied to determine whether
there is a difference with vertically placed screens and whether
there exists an optimal or accepted brightness.
Display size, regardless of horizontal or vertical orientation, is an
essential factor that greatly impacts operators. Swaminathan and
Sato (1997) noted that as display size increases, it becomes quali-
tatively different: compared to small displays, large displays are
more effective in showing additional details and are often used to
magnify images because magnification brings more display pixels
for a given image portion, enabling easier viewing or interaction
(Buxton et al., 2000; Chen and Lin, 2004; Streitz et al., 1999). In
particular applications, large displays are also more effective in
aiding users in spatial tasks (Tan et al., 2003). Smaller displays are
commonly used in individual and private workspaces, whereas
larger public displays often promote activity and social awareness
(Greenberg and Rounding, 2001; Huang and Mynatt, 2003; Juola
et al., 1995). It must be noted that larger displays may also have
ergonomic issues. For example, Elliott and Hearst (2002) indicated
that when working with a large horizontal display, artifacts or input
may be out of reach, forcing users to stand up in order to reach far-
away objects. Conversely, when working on a smaller display,
people may crowd around the display, interfering with each other
as they reach across the display.
Screen size may also influence the selection of viewing distance,
which may further influence user health and comfort (Jaschinski-
Kruza, 1991). Szeto and Lee (2002) reported a viewing distance of
53.6  7.4 cm when users were making assessments for a hori-
zontal workstation. Shieh (2000) reported that the mean viewing
distance for LCD displays was 42.3 cm and that distance correlated
significantly with subjective visual fatigue. The Pearson pro-
ductemoment correlation coefficient indicated that viewing
distance was inversely related to subjective visual fatigue
(r ¼ 0.31, p < 0.05). Subjects with a longer viewing distance
generally experienced less subjective visual fatigue.
Tabletop technology and system development has advanced
quite rapidly due to hardware and software innovations. However,
though there exists literature that addresses screen positioning
direction (horizontal or vertical), size, distance, and brightness
157
influences, most studies have been based on hardware devices from
many years ago (Chen and Lin, 2004; Humar et al., 2008; Marmaras
et al., 2008; Menozzi et al., 2001); thus, this past research needs to
be extended in order to address ergonomic considerations with
newer, large-scale tabletop systems. Likewise, innovative LST
development also needs to meet user needs and address some
important ergonomic issues that we will discuss in the following
sections.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Sixteen college students (11 males and 5 females) were
recruited to participate in the comparison experiments. All subjects
were right handed (self-reported) and had normal (4.9 or above,
examined) uncorrected or corrected visual acuity. The mean subject
age was 24 yr with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.06 yr (between
22 yr and 26 yr). The mean height was 171 cm with an SD of 7.2 cm
(between 158 cm and 180 cm). A background survey questionnaire
suggested that all the subjects were familiar with computers with
over three years of experience. Each subject was required to
complete a reading-based task on an LST and on a 1400 laptop
(a within-design for display type).
3.2. Apparatus
The experiment was conducted on an LST and a laptop sepa-
rately. The LST was a 4700 LCD (liquid crystal display) TV (Model:
SkyworthÒ 47L02RF, http://www.skyworth.com) with a refresh
rate of 60 Hz, horizontally placed as a tabletop screen with a reso-
lution of 1024  768 pixels (corresponding to 25 DPI horizontally
and 33.4 DPI vertically). The screen had a width  height of
104.5 cm  58.5 cm. The selection of these parameters was based
on design criteria of a large-scale tabletop under development. The
laptop was a popular notebook computer with a 1400 LCD screen
(width  height: 28.4 cm  21.3 cm) refreshed at a 60 Hz rate. The
resolution of the laptop was also 1024  768 pixels (corresponding
to 91.4 DPI both horizontally and vertically).
In the experiment with the LST and laptop, both screens were
placed on an 80 cm-high table. The LST was placed such that its
center was 30 cm from the participant, and the chair was adjusted
in height such that the participant’s eyes were 45 cm from the near
edge of the LST. To control the viewing distance, the laptop was also
placed such that its screen was 45 cm away from the participant’s
eyes. Both of the two experiments were video recorded.
3.3. Tasks and measurements
Each subject was required to perform four tasks (discussed
below). The experimental sequence regarding screen type (LST vs.
laptop), reading material (A1 or A2), and background color selec-
tion (six alternative designs), as explained below, were all
counterbalanced.
3.3.1. Color preference experiment
To examine whether background color preference is signifi-
cantly affected by the display type (possibly because of brightness,
DPI, and/or view direction), we designed six typical backgrounds
with PowerPointÒ. Each design has two colors blended, transited
from one to the other horizontally. The reading material was dis-
played in front of the background color. Fig. 1 shows one design,
and Table 1 lists the details.
The preference was measured pair by pair for the six color
designs. In total, 15 pairs ðC26 Þ of color designs were prepared as 15
158 B. Li et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 156e161

Fig. 1. Color pair slide for background color preference experiment. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

PowerPoint slides for the participant to view and rank. For each order to minimize the influence of memory difference of the
slide, if the participant prefers one color to the other, the preferred participants, we allowed them to search the answers from the
color receives two credits while the other one receives zero. articles they have just read. Accordingly the answer accuracy was
Otherwise, if the participant cannot tell which one he/she prefers, 100% for all the participants in our experiments, both on the LST
then both receive one credit. The total accumulated credits from the and the laptop. For both reading and answering, the time taken was
sixteen subjects for each color were used to reflect overall color recorded, and it was used to reflect a user’s efficiency of reading
preference. To counterbalance the left-right sequence effect, we a task.
prepared another set of 15-pair slides. Half of the subjects (eight) When reading on the LST, the subjects were encouraged to set
viewed either of the two sets of slides. Concurrently, half the their most comfortable reading area by adjusting the display
subjects conducted the experiment on LST first while the other half window size (preset as full-window display). The laptop reading
tested the laptop first. was set only for full-screen. The final window size defined by each
subject was measured to indicate his/her preferred display size, and
3.3.2. Reading experiment it was used to calculate the FOV.
The reading task included reading an article and then answering
8 questions based on article comprehension. Two articles (A1, A2) 3.3.3. Brightness adjustment
with entirely different content but very similar structure, length This task was only used for the LST because people do not often
(w6000 words), and language difficulty were used, one of each for adjust the brightness of their laptops. The experiment started with
either the LST or the laptop. In order to counterbalance the a preset brightness (for a brightness adjustment scale of 0e100,
sequence effect, half the number of subjects (eight) read A1 on the preset to 50, which corresponds to actual measured brightness of
LST and A2 on the laptop, with the other half performing the 344 Cd/m2) and included the following four adjustments:
opposite.
The total given time for reading the article was 15 min based on A Put the LST screen vertically and 240 cm away from the subject,
a prior pilot test, but the subjects were allowed to finish earlier. then after viewing for 1 min, allow him/her adjust the
After reading, the subjects answered eight objective questions. In brightness to the most comfortable level using a remote
control.
A Put the LST screen vertically and 45 cm away from the subject,
Table 1
then after viewing for 1 min, allow him/her adjust the
Background color design and rating credits. brightness to the most comfortable level using a remote
control.
Color design and hue From (R/G/B) to (R/G/B)a LST Laptop
A Put the LST screen horizontally on the experiment table; then,
C1: Reddish (255/83/83)e(253/248/225) 28 40
after viewing for 1 min (viewing distance: 45 cm) allow him/
C2: Blackish (38/38/38)e(217/217/217) 76 96
C3: Bluish (100/139/213)e(115/115/115) 105 113 her adjust the brightness to the most comfortable level using
C4: Grayish (217/217/217)e(115/115/115) 114 109 a remote control.
C5: Purplish (112/48/160)e(115/115/115) 66 39 A Perform the reading task as explained above, then again allow
C6: Yellowish (203/165/14)e(115/115/115) 91 83 him/her to adjust the brightness to the most comfortable level
a
Background filled with two blended colors, transited from left to right. using a remote control.
 B. Li et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 156e161 159

For all the above four adjustments, a luminance meter was used Table 3
to measure the brightness of a white area (blank) on the screen. User-defined field of view (FOV).

Comparison of the four user-selected brightness levels indicated Display Width (cm) Depth (cm) Horizontal FOV Vertical FOV
the user’s brightness preference. Mean SD Mean SD Mean Mean
LSTa 52 9.1 47 6.1 54 46
3.3.4. Subjective evaluation Laptopb 28 0 21 0 34 25
After completing the reading experiment task on either the LST a
LST’s total possible display area is 104.5 cm  58.5 cm.
or the laptop, the subjects were required to fill in a questionnaire to b
Laptop has fixed view area width and depth (SD ¼ 0).
report their reading experience, such as comfort, easiness to locate
a paragraph, fatigue (including visual and body fatigue), self-
evaluated efficiency of task completion, screen resolution, and A The difference in pre-experiment brightness and post-
overall satisfaction. The subjective evaluation was based on experiment brightness failed to reach significance of 95%
a seven-point scale. Finally, the normalized percentage of evalua- confidence in the experiment (p ¼ 0.103). However, our videos
tion results on the LST was calculated to reflect the subjective show that over half the subjects lowered the brightness during
evaluation and compared to the laptop. their reading experiment.
A Both pre- and post-experiment brightness on the LST are
3.3.5. Data analysis significantly lower than the preset brightness (60% and 76%,
Both parametric and nonparametric techniques were employed respectively, p < 0.001).
in the data analysis with SPSSÒ software. For measurements that A The difference of 45 cm-horizontal post-experiment bright-
satisfy the “normality assumption,” parametric analysis techniques ness and 45-cm vertical brightness failed to reach significance,
(i.e., paired t-test) were used to compare the difference in the although the vertical one is higher in average (p ¼ 0.401).
measurements on the LST vs. the laptop. For measurements not A The brightness of the 45-cm vertical screen is significantly
satisfying the “normality assumption”, nonparametric analysis (i.e., lower than that of 240 cm vertical screen. The latter is very
Friedman’s test and Wilcoxon rank test) was used. close to the preset value on the LST.

Table 5 lists the subjective evaluation results on both the LST and
4. Results
laptop. Statistical analysis shows that all of the subjective
measurements on the LST are significantly lower than on the
The accumulated ranked credits for the six color designs are
laptop, indicating that performing the same task on the LST caused
listed in Table 1. The three most preferred color designs on the LST
more discomfort, more difficulty in locating paragraphs, more
were C4, C3, and C6, whereas those on the laptop were C3, C4, and
visual and body fatigue, lower efficiency, and lower satisfaction.
C2. The Wilcoxon rank test indicated that the difference in back-
In conjunction with the subjective evaluation, the open question
ground color preference was not significant (Z ¼ 0.210, p ¼ 0.833).
collected from the opinions of the subjects suggested that the LST
The measured task completion time for material reading and
had the following main problems:
question answering is listed in Table 2. The average reading time on
the laptop was 602 s, compared with 766 s on the LST (27% longer).
A LST leads to quicker perceived visual fatigue.
A subsequent paired t-test showed that the difference was signifi-
A LST requires a forward leaning position that results in neck
cant (p ¼ 0.003). The question answering times on the laptop and
fatigue.
LST were 298 and 348 s, respectively. A subsequent t-test indicated
A Larger field of view requires head movement while reading,
that the difference in question answering times on the laptop and
which adds to eye and neck fatigue.
LST were not significant (p ¼ 0.233). For the total time of reading
A Larger field of view leads to larger font size and font
and answering, the subjects’ task completion efficiency on the LST
deformation.
was significantly lower (24%) than that on the laptop.
A Larger font size (because of low resolution) reduces informa-
The view area and FOV on the LST and laptop are listed in
tion in a given view area.
Table 3. Because there was no adjustment allowed on the laptop,
A LST has a thicker shield glass, which results in ghosting effects.
the SD for width and depth (or height) is zero. Apparently, the view
Accordingly, the users have to increase luminance that in turn
area and FOV on the LST are both much larger than those on the
causes glare and visual fatigue.
laptop. Font size was fixed for both the LST and the laptop, the
A Larger field of view causes uneven perceived luminance from
corresponding visual angle per Chinese character (at window
near to far.
center) on the LST and the laptop were 1.3  0.92 and
0.41  0.47, respectively.
The laptop screen brightness as set to default had a measure- 5. Discussion
ment of 145 Cd/m2. The corresponding pre-experiment brightness
on the LST was 215 Cd/m2, whereas the post-experiment brightness 5.1. Subjective evaluations and objective measurements
was 195 Cd/m2 (see Table 4). Paired t-tests show:
The subjective evaluation results, as shown in Table 5, are quite
consistent with the objective measurements shown in Tables 2e4.
The relatively lower DPI of the LST (25 DPI) compared with the
Table 2
Reading and answering task completion time.
Table 4
Time LST (s) Laptop (s) p Average brightness (Cd/m2) of viewing area.
Mean SD Mean SD
Horizontal LST from 45 cm Vertical LST Laptop from
Reading materials 766 184 602 131 <0.01 45 cm
Answering questions 348 108 298 114 ¼0.15 Pre-set Pre-exp Post-exp From 45 cm From 240 cm
Total time 1114 225 900 168 <0.01 344 215 195 234 324 145
160 B. Li et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 156e161
Table 5
Subjective evaluation (normalized percentage compared to the laptop).
Display Comfort Easinessa Fatigue Efficiency Resolution Satisfaction
LST Mean 60% 75% 53% 68% 70%
SD 25% 23% 33% 26% 40%
Laptop 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
pb <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05
a
How easy it is to locate a paragraph in order to find information.
b
Wilcoxon rank test.
laptop (91.4 DPI) corresponds well with the subjects’ perceived
lower resolution of LST, and accordingly, the subjects had to
increase the viewing area of the LST (also increasing the FOV) to see
the fonts clearly. Consequently, the subjects reading a document on
the LST with a larger FOV had to move their heads and/or eyes to
read the document line by line, which in turn caused visual fatigue,
neck fatigue, and discomfort (reported in the subjective evalua-
tions). The perceived lower efficiency on the LST is consistent with
the measured task completion time, including both reading time
and question answering time. The overall lower satisfaction with
the LST could be attributed to the lower DPI, larger view area and
field of view, longer task completion time, and many needed
brightness adjustments. It is reasonable to assume that if the LST
resolution (DPI) is substantially increased through technology or
product improvement, then many of the problems could be solved.
For example, increased DPI would allow the user to use a moderate
view area (also FOV) to read documents, thus resulting overall in
less head movement, visual and neck discomfort and fatigue, and
improved task completion efficiency. However, even with increased
resolution, the following two problems with LSTs may still exist:
A Horizontally placed screens may suffer more from glare caused
by overhead lights. Accordingly, brightness adjustments might
still be needed.
A Although view area may be potentially reduced with increased
DPI for reading tasks, users may still prefer a larger window to
display more information; thus, they will still be exposed to
more brightness from the LST.
5.2. Similarity and difference in preferred color and brightness
Table 1 shows that the subjects had almost the same preferred
alternative background color designs. The preferred brightness
difference for the horizontal LST or the vertical LST at a distance of
45 cm is insignificant. However, subjects chose a larger viewing
area and FOV on the LST than they were provided on the laptop for
the same 45 cm view distance. The chosen brightness for the LST
and the provided brightness on laptop is also significantly different.
These two major differences may be attributed to the lower reso-
lution of the LST, as explained in the above subsection. The signif-
icantly lower brightness chosen by the subjects for the 45 cm
distance vertical LST compared to that for the 240 cm distance
vertical LST indicates that the brightness usually used for TV-like
purposes (set value of 50 for 0e100 scale, 344 Cd/m2) is too
bright for tabletop LST applications and needs to be adjusted.
5.3. Reading efficiency
Table 2 shows that reading efficiency on LSTs is significantly
lower than regular laptops. This result indicates that LSTs with the
parameters used in this experiment are not suitable for extensive
reading-based tasks. However, because the difference is only
approximately 30%, it is reasonable to assume that group discus-
sions using LSTs with limited or moderate reading requirements are
still acceptable. Streamlined document examination and task
approval by a group of administrators around a tabletop is also
acceptable. In other applications with extensive document reading
68% requirements, it may be better to have laptops or other screens as
20% supplemental devices to LSTs.
100% The reduced efficiency with LST, as indicated by longer reading
<0.001
time, is consistent with Slattery and Rayner (2010). In their study,
it was found that reading passages rendered with ClearType anti-
aliasing (which reduces pixilation that results from low resolu-
tion) led to faster reading, fewer fixations, and shorter fixation
durations than passages rendered without such anti-aliasing, but
there were no comprehension differences between these
rendering methods. In our study, the LST had a lower resolution
than the laptop (25 DPI vs. 91.4 DPI), accordingly the font display
on the LST suffered more from aliasing. Future LSTs with greatly
improved DPI may eliminate the aliasing effect, but users may also
select larger reading areas than current laptop screens allow in
order to display more information. If this is the case, reading
efficiency for such LSTs would still need to be investigated. In
addition, preferred brightness and reading distance may still differ
from laptops.
6. Conclusions
For large-scale tabletop applications, it is important to have
high-resolution screens or projections to avoid performance and
usability degradation. The experimental study shows that a regular
low-resolution screen used in this study caused both lower objec-
tive measurement performances and lower subjective evaluations.
However, other factors, such as brightness selection, field of view,
and view distance adjustment are also important ergonomic issues
for LST application success.
Acknowledgments
The study was sponsored by the National “863-Program” project
under grant number 2009AA01Z336. Parts of the experiments were
made possible through collaboration with graduate students in
Prof. Yunchun Shi’s Lab.
References
Buxton, W., Fitzmaurice, G.W., Balakrishnan, R., Kurtenbach, G., 2000. Large
displays in automotive design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 20
(4), 68e75.
Chen, M.T., Lin, C.C., 2004. Comparison of TFT-LCD and CRT on visual recognition
and subjective preference. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 34 (3),
167e174.
Dietz, P., Leigh, D., 2001. DiamondTouch: a multi-user touch technology. In:
Proceedings of Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Tech-
nology (UIST) (Orlando, USA, Nov. 11e14), pp. 219e226.
Elliott, A., Hearst, M.A., 2002. A comparison of the affordances of a digital desk and
tablet for architectural image use tasks. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 56 (2), 173e197.
Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., Balakrishnan, R., 2007. Direct-touch vs. mouse
input for tabletop displays. In: Proceedings of CHI 2007(San Jose, USA, April
28eMay 3), pp. 647e656.
Greenberg, S., Rounding, M., 2001. The notification collage: posting information to
public and personal displays. In: Proceedings of CHI 2001(Seattle, USA, March
31eApril 5), pp. 514e521.
Huang, E., Mynatt, E.D., 2003. Semi-public displays for small, co-located groups.
In: Proceedings of CHI 2003(Fort Lauderdale, FL., USA, April 5e10),
pp. 49e56.
Humar, I., Gradisar, M., Turk, T., 2008. The impact of color combinations on the
legibility of a Web page text presented on CRT displays. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 38, 885e899.
Jaschinski-Kruza, W., 1991. Eyestrain in VDU users: viewing distance and the resting
position of ocular muscles. Human Factors 33, 69e83.
Juola, J.F., Tiritoglu, A., Pleunis, J., 1995. Reading text presented on a small display.
Applied Ergonomics 26, 227e229.
Leavitt, S.B., 1995. Lower your VDT monitor. Workplace Ergonomics 1 (4), 32e35.
 B. Li et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012) 156e161
Lin, C.C., 2003. Effects of contrast ratio and text color on visual performance with
TFT-LCD. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31, 65e72.
Lin, C.C., 2005. Effects of screen luminance combination and text color on visual
performance with TFT-LCD. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35
(3), 229e235.
Marmaras, N., Nathanael, D., Zarboutis, N., 2008. The transition from CRT to LCD
monitors: effects on monitor placement and possible consequences in viewing
distance and body postures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38,
584e592.
Matsushita, M., Iida, M., Ohguro, T., 2004. Lumisight Table: a face-to-face collabo-
ration support system that optimizes direction of projected information to each
stakeholder. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2004(Chicago, USA, Nov. 6e10),
pp. 274e283.
Menozzi, M., Lang, F., Napflin, U., Zeller, C., Krueger, H., 2001. CRT versus LCD: effects
of refresh rate, display technology and back-ground luminance in visual
performance. Displays 22 (3), 79e85.
O’Hara, K., Sellen, A., 1997. A comparison of reading paper and on-line
documents. In: Proceedings of CHI 1997(Atlanta, USA, March 22e27),
pp. 335e342.
Sanders, M.S., McCormic, E.J., 1993. Human Factors in Engineering and Design.
McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Scott, S.D., Grant, K.D., Mandryk, R.L., 2003. System guidelines for co-located,
collaborative work on a tabletop display. In: Proceedings of the Eighth
Conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(ECSCW). Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 159e178.
Shi, Y.C., Xie, W.K., Xu, G.Y., 2003. The smart classroom: merging technologies for
seamless tele-education. IEEE Pervasive Computing 2 (2), 47e55.
Shi, Y., Yu, C., Shi, Y.C., 2008. Finger gesture interaction on large tabletop for sharing
digital documents among multiple users. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Ubi-media Computing (U-Media 2008) (Lanzhou, China,
July 15e16), pp. 8e13.
Shieh, K.K., 2000. Effects of reflection and polarity on LCD viewing distance.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 25, 275e282.
161
Shieh, K.K., Lin, C.C., 2000. Effects of screen type, ambient illumination, and color
combination on VDT visual performance and subjective preference. Interna-
tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26, 527e536.
Slattery, T.J., Rayner, K., 2010. The influence of text legibility on eye movements
during reading. Applied Cognitive Psychology 24, 1129e1148.
Streitz, N., Geißler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S., Müllertomfelde, C., Reischl, W.,
Rexroth, P., Seitz, P., Steinmetz, R., 1999. i-LAND: an interactive landscape for
creativity and innovation. In: Proceedings of CHI’99 (Pittsburgh, May 15e20,
1999). ACM Press, New York, pp. 120e127.
Swaminathan, K., Sato, S., 1997. Interaction design for large displays. Interactions 4
(1), 15e24.
Szeto, G.P., Lee, R., 2002. An ergonomic evaluation comparing desktop, notebook,
and subnotebook computers. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
83, 527e532.
Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., Pausch, R., 2003. With similar visual angles, larger
displays improve spatial performance. In: Proceedings of CHI 2003(Fort Lau-
derdale, FL., USA, April 5e10), pp. 217e224.
Terrenghi, L., Kirk, D., Sellen, A., Izadi, S., 2007. Affordances for manipulation of
physical versus digital media on interactive surfaces. In: Proceedings of CHI
2007(San Jose, USA, April 28eMay 3), pp. 1157e1166.
Villanueva, M.B.G., Sotoyama, M., Jonai, H., Takeuchi, Y., Saitu, S., 1996. Adjustments
of posture and viewing parameters of the eye to changes in the screen height of
the visual display terminal. Ergonomics 39, 933e945.
Wang, A.H., Chen, C.H., 2003. Effects of screen type, Chinese typography, text/
background color combination, speed, and jump length for VDT leading display
on users’ reading performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
31 (4), 249e261.
Wilson, A.D., 2005. PlayAnywhere: a compact interactive tabletop projection-vision
system. In: Proceedings of Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software
and Technology (UIST) (Seattle, USA, October 23e26), pp. 83e92.
Wu, F.G., Chen, C.Y., 2009. Effects of color display, color name, color formation and
color alignment on the screen layout usability of customized product color
combination. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39, 655e666.