How physical text layout affects reading from screen
Open accessAbstract
The primary objective of this paper is to critically evaluate empirical research on some variables relating to the configuration of text on screen to consolidate our current knowledge in these areas. The text layout variables are line length, columns, window size and interlinear spacing, with an emphasis on line length due to the larger number of studies related to this variable. Methodological issues arising from individual studies and from comparisons among studies are identified. A synthesis of results is offered which provides alternative interpretations of some findings and identifies the number of characters per line as the critical variable in looking at line length. Further studies are needed to explore the interactions between characters per line and eye movements, scrolling movements, reading patterns and familiarity with formats.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Double spacing seems to be better than single spacing for reading.
“Double spacing seems to be better than single spacing for reading (Dyson, 2004).”
From The Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online Readability and Performance (2014) · cites this paper as Dyson, 2004
Spacing between lines of text impacts speed of reading on-screen.
“Spacing between the lines of a text, also impacts speed of reading on-screen (Dyson, 2004).”
From The Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online Readability and Performance (2014) · cites this paper as Dyson, 2004
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Reading text from computer screens
Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/45075.46162 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- ASKWALL, S. 1985, Computer supported reading vs. reading text on paper: a comparison of two reading situations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 425 -439.
- DILLON, A. 1992, Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35, 1297 - 1326.
- DUIN, A.H. 1988, Computer-assisted instructional displays: effects on students' computing behaviors, prewriting, and attitudes. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 48 -56.
- DYSON, M.C. and HASELGROVE, M. 2000, The effects of reading speed and reading patterns on our understanding of text read from screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 210 - 223.
- DYSON, M.C. and 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, 585 -612.
- DYSON, M.C. and KIPPING, G.J. 1998b, Exploring the effect of layout on reading from screen. In R. D. Hersch, J. Andre´ and H. Brown (eds) Electronic Documents, Artistic Imaging and Digital Typography (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), pp. 294 - 304.
- FOSTER, J.J. 1970, A study of the legibility of one-and two- column layouts for BPS publications. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 23, 113 -114.
- GRABINGER, R.S. and OSMAN-JOUCHOUX, R. 1996, Designing screens for learning. In H. van Oostendorp and S. de Mul (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Nor- wood, New Jersey: Ablex), pp.181 -212.
- HARTLEY, J., BURNHILL, P. and FRASER, S. 1974, Typographical problems of journal design. Applied Ergonomics, 5, 15 -20.
- HORTON, W., TAYLOR, L., IGNACIO, A. and HOFT, N.L. 1996, The Web Page Design Cookbook (New York: John Wiley).
- HUEY, E.B. 1908, The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading (New York: Macmillan; reprinted 1968 Cambridge, Massa- chusetts: MIT Press).
- JACKSON, M.D. and MCCLELLAND, J.L. 1979, Processing determinants of reading speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 151 -181.
- LUND, O. 1999, Knowledge Construction in Typography: the Case of Legibility Research and the Legibility of Sans Serif Typefaces, PhD thesis (Reading University, UK)
- MORRISON, R.E. 1983, Retinal image size and the perceptual span in reading. In K. Rayner (ed) Eye Movements in Reading: Perceptual and Language Processes (New York: Academic Press), pp. 31 -40.
- MUTER, P. 1996, Interface design and optimization of reading of continuous text. In H. van Oostendorp and S. de Mul (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing (Nor- wood, New Jersey: Ablex), pp. 161 -180.
- OBORNE, D.J. and HOLTON, D. 1988, Reading from screen versus paper: there is no difference. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, 1 -9.
- In E. D. Megaw (ed) Contemporary Ergonomics 1989 (London: Taylor & Francis), pp. 474 -479.
- TINKER, M.A. 1963, Legibility of Print (Iowa: Iowa State University Press).
- TINKER, M.A. 1965, Bases for Effective Reading (Minneapolis: Lund Press).
- TWYMAN, M. 1982, The graphic presentation of language. Information Design Journal, 3, 2 -22.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis
Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
The Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online Readability and Performance
Hojjati, N., & Muniandy, B. (2014) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/6122 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“Spacing between the lines of a text, also impacts speed of reading on-screen (Dyson, 2004).”
Background
- Authors
- Dyson, M. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Reading (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dyson, Mary C.
- ORCID
- Dyson, Mary C.
- Venue
- Behaviour & Information Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 377-393
- ISSN
- 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1362-3001
- OpenAlex
- W2037001467
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- text layout, digital reading, line length, columns, window size, eye movements, scrolling, reading patterns, text familiarity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
