Optimal Orientation of Text Documents for Reading and Writing

References

• Adler, A., Gujar, A., Harrison, B., O’Hara, K., & Sellen, A. J. (1998). A diary study of work-related reading: Design implications for digital reading devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘98), 241–248. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, M., Liao, C. H., & Mills, M. (2001). The effects of font type and size on the legibility and reading time of online text by older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘01), Extended Abstracts, 175–176. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., & Regli, S. H. (1998). A study of fonts designed for screen display. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘98), 87–94. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Deitz, P., & Leigh, D. (2001). DiamondTouch: A multi-user touch technology. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ‘01), 219–226. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297–1326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragicevic, P., & Shi, Y. (2009). Visualizing and manipulating automatic document orientation methods using vector fields. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS ‘09), 65–68. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, M. C. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23(6), 377–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyson, M. C., & Haselgrove, M. (2001). The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 585–612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzmaurice, G. W., Balakrishnan, R., Kurtenbach, G., & Buxton, B. (1999). An exploration into supporting artwork orientation in the user interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘99), 167–174. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N., & Minuto, A. (1987a). Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to isolate a single-variable explanation. Human Factors, 29(3), 269–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Haupt, B., & Minuto, A. (1987b). Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29(5), 497–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guiard, Y., & Millerat, F. (1984). Writing postures in left-handers: Inverters are hand-crossers. Neuropsychologia, 22(5), 535–538.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hancock, M. S., Vernier, F. D., Wigdor, D., Carpendale, S., & Shen, C. (2006). Rotation and translation mechanisms for tabletop interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (TABLETOP ‘06), 79–88. Washington, DC: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, M. K., Piper, A. M., Weibel, N., Olberding, S., & Hollan, J. D. (2012). Microanalysis of active reading behavior to inform design of interactive desktop workspaces. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS ‘12), 215–224. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Koriat, A., & Norman, J. (1985). Reading rotated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(4), 490–508.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, R., Carpendale, S., Scott, S. D., & Greenberg, S. (2003). How people use orientation on tables: Comprehension, coordination and communication. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP ‘03), 369–378. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, R., Carpendale, S., Scott, S. D., & Tang, A. (2005). Fluid integration of rotation and translation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘05), 601–610. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, J., & Reid, M. (1976). Variations in writing posture and cerebral organization. Science, 194(4262), 337–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luff, P., & Heath, C. (1998). Mobility in collaboration. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘98), 305–314. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, C. (1997). Annotation: From paper books to the digital library. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries (DL ‘97). 131–140. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, C., & Bly, S. (2005). Turning the page on navigation. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL ‘05), 225–234. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Matulic, F., & Norrie, M. C. (2012). Supporting active reading on pen and touch-operated tabletops. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ‘12), 612–619. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(4), 329–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, G. D. (2003). Orientation on tabletop displays ( M. Sc. Thesis). Simon Fraser University.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, M. R., Brush, A. J., & Meyers, B. (2007). Reading revisited: Evaluating the usability of digital display surfaces for active reading tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (TABLETOP ‘07), 79–86. Washington, DC: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352–1375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K., & Sellen, A. J. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘97), 335–342. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K. P., Taylor, A., Newman, W., & Sellen, A. J. (2002). Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 269–305. Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Perrin, J. L., Pailleb, D., & Baccinoa, T. (2014). Reading tilted: Does the use of tablets impact performance? An oculometric study. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 339–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piolat, A., Roussey, J. Y., & Thunin, O. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47(4), 565–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilit, B. N., Golovchinsky, G., & Price, M. N. (1998). Beyond paper: Supporting active reading with free form digital ink annotations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘98), 249–256. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. J. (2002). The myth of the paperless office. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shen, C., Vernier, F., Forlines, C., & Ringerl, M. (2004). DiamondSpin: An extensible toolkit for around-the-table interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘04), 167–174. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Shibata, H., Takano, K., & Omura, K. (2013). Why paper is superior to computer displays in cross-reference reading for multiple documents? In Proceedings of the International Display Workshops (IDW ’13), EP4–3.
   Google Scholar
• Shibata, H., Takano, K., & Omura, K. (2014). Comparison of paper and computer displays in reading including frequent movement between pages. In Proceedings of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures (OzCHI ‘14), 549–558. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Shibata, H., Takano, K., & Tano, S. (2015). Text touching effects in active reading: The impact of the use of a touch-based tablet device. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT ‘15), LNCS 9296, 559–576. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Streitz, N., Geisler, J., Homer, T., Konomi, K., Muller-Tomfelde, C., Rexroth, P., … Steinmetz, R. (2002). i-Land: An interactive landscape for creativity and innovation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘02), 120–127. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, J. (1991). Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2), 143–160.
   Google Scholar
• Tinker, M. (1972). Effect of angular alignment upon readability of print. Journal of Educational Psychology, 358–363.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vernier, F., Lesh, N. B., & Shen, C. (2002). Visualization techniques for circular tabletop interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ‘02), 257–265. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2008). The effect of page layout on mental workload: A dual-task experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1229–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigdor, D., & Balakrishnan, R. (2005). Empirical investigation into the effect of orientation on text readability in tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the Conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’05), 205–224. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar