Objective influences determining demand--Display, size, location, and policy of store.

1930 ◽  
pp. 142-157
Author(s):  
A. J. Snow
Keyword(s):  
Display Size

scholarly journals A comparison of accommodation and ocular discomfort change according to display size of smart devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong Woo Kang ◽  
Yeoun Sook Chun ◽  
Nam Ju Moon
Keyword(s):  
Display Size ◽  
Adverse Impact ◽  
Smart Devices ◽  
Accommodative Response ◽  
Quantitative Measurements ◽  
Objective Metrics ◽  
Ocular Discomfort ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Small Display ◽  
Ophthalmic Disease

Abstract Background To evaluate the change of accommodation and ocular discomfort according to the display size, using quantitative measurements of accommodation and ocular discomfort through subjective and objective metrics. Methods Forty six subjects without any ophthalmic disease history were asked to watch the documentary movie, using two different sizes of smart devices; smartphones and tablets. Before and after using devices, the near point accommodation (NPA) and the near point convergence (NPC) were measured, and objective accommodation was measured using an auto refractometer/keratometer. The subjective ocular discomfort was assessed through a survey. Results Both devices showed a decrease in post-use NPA and NPC, and the change after use of the smartphone was significantly severe, 1.8 and 2.5 folds respectively, compared to tablet (p = 0.044, p = 0.033, respectively). Neither smartphone nor tablet showed significant changes in the accommodative response induced by dynamic accommodative stimulus of auto refractometer/keratometer (p = 0.240 and p = 0.199, respectively). Subjects showed a more severe increase in ocular discomfort after using smartphones (p = 0.035) and reported feeling tired even with shorter use times (p = 0.012). Conclusions Both devices showed significant decreases in NPA and NPC, and the larger changes were seen when using the small display smartphone. Even within 20minutes of using, subjects start to feel ocular discomfort, and it was more severe and faster after smartphones than tablets. Therefore, the smaller the display size, the greater the adverse impact on eyes, and thus, appropriate display size will need to be selected depending on the time and purpose of use.

What's the Optimum Computer Display Size?

2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 19-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri Simmons
Keyword(s):  
Display Size ◽  
Scientific Study

Answering that question through scientific study can strengthen a product's chances in the marketplace.

scholarly journals Investigation of optimal display size for viewing T1-weighted MR images of the brain using a digital contrast-detail phantom

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 353-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideki Fujita ◽  
Nao Kuwahata ◽  
Hiroyuki Hattori ◽  
Hiroshi Kinoshita ◽  
Haruyuki Fukuda
Keyword(s):  
Display Size ◽  
Mr Images ◽  
The Brain

Large Display Size Enhances User Experience in 3D Games

2006 ◽  
pp. 257-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Lin ◽  
Wanhua Hu ◽  
Atsumi Imamiya ◽  
Masaki Omata
Keyword(s):  
User Experience ◽  
Display Size ◽  
Large Display

scholarly journals Reconciling print-size and display-size constraints on reading

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (48) ◽  
pp. 30276-30284
Author(s):  
Nilsu Atilgan ◽  
Ying-Zi Xiong ◽  
Gordon E. Legge
Keyword(s):  
Display Size ◽  
Low Vision ◽  
Reading Speed ◽  
Reading Performance ◽  
Unified Framework ◽  
Size Constraints ◽  
Minimum Number ◽  
Dual Constraints ◽  
Digital Formats ◽  
Print Size

Two fundamental constraints limit the number of characters in text that can be displayed at one time—print size and display size. These dual constraints conflict in two important situations—when people with normal vision read text on small digital displays, and when people with low vision read magnified text. Here, we describe a unified framework for evaluating the joint impact of these constraints on reading performance. We measured reading speed as a function of print size for three digital formats (laptop, tablet, and cellphone) for 30 normally sighted and 10 low-vision participants. Our results showed that a minimum number of characters per line is required to achieve a criterion of 80% of maximum reading speed: 13 characters for normally sighted and eight characters for low-vision readers. This critical number of characters is nearly constant across font and display format. Possible reasons for this required number of characters are discussed. Combining these character count constraints with the requirements for adequate print size reveals that an individual’s use of a small digital display or the need for magnified print can shrink or entirely eliminate the range of print size necessary for achieving maximum reading speed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document