Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Two experiments are reported which compared proof-reading performance across three different modes of presentation. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that proof-reading accuracy was significantly worse on a VDU than on paper, with a photograph of the VDU display producing intermediate performance. It was also demonstrated that substitutions of visually similar errors were harder to detect than other error types. The results of Experiment 2 replicated these findings, but failed to find any difference between twin-column and single-column presentation. The findings are interpreted as indicating that character font may be a major factor in the poor performance with the VDU. It is suggested that the present experimental paradigm could be a useful assessment tool for the evaluation of display design.
Creed et al. (Thu,) studied this question.