7 |
- white |
- white |
8 |
- one color |
- one color |
9 |
- full texture |
- full texture |
10 |
- grayscale texture |
- grayscale texture (intensity scale "compressed" to a certain range) |
11 |
|
|
12 |
General: |
General: |
13 |
|
|
15 |
- the order of the test cases is random for each subject |
- the order of the test cases is random for each subject |
16 |
to componsate memory effects |
to componsate memory effects |
17 |
|
|
18 |
Recognisability test (usefulness): |
Recognisability test (usefulness) |
19 |
|
--------------------------------- |
20 |
|
|
21 |
- objective: show that the background textures are useful |
- objective: show that the background textures are useful |
22 |
- means: show that fragments of documents can be recognized much |
- means: show that fragments of documents can be recognized much |
26 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
29 |
|
|
30 |
Suppose that the first page of each of hundreds of documents is torn into |
Suppose that the first page of each of hundreds of documents is torn into |
31 |
pieces and the pieces are put in a single container. |
pieces and the pieces are put in a single container. |
32 |
It is intuitively clear that the pieces can be identified and put |
It is intuitively clear that the pieces can be identified and put |
33 |
back together much more rapidly if each document has a unique |
back together much more rapidly if each document has a unique |
34 |
background texture as compared to, e.g., single background colors. |
background texture as compared to, e.g., single background colors. |
35 |
|
|
36 |
Another question is whether the extra features of textures help |
Another question is whether the extra features of the textures help |
37 |
recognition as much if the fragments cannot be seen simultaneously |
recognition as much if the fragments cannot be seen simultaneously |
38 |
for comparing. |
for comparing. |
39 |
|
|
40 |
|
"Applicability"(better word?) test |
41 |
|
---------------------------------- |
|
"Applicability"(better word?) test: |
|
42 |
|
|
43 |
- objective: show that the textures are better than single colors |
- objective: show that the textures are better than single colors |
44 |
|
|
50 |
XXX: small-scale fragments do lose shape features. |
XXX: small-scale fragments do lose shape features. |
51 |
what to say about this |
what to say about this |
52 |
|
|
53 |
Readability test (non-disruptiveness): |
Readability test (non-disruptiveness) |
54 |
|
------------------------------------- |
55 |
|
|
56 |
- objective: show that readablity does not suffer much |
- objective: show that readablity does not suffer much |
57 |
- means: show that text size has much stronger effect on readability |
- means: show that text size has much stronger effect on readability |
58 |
than the presence of background texture |
than the presence of background texture |
59 |
|
|
60 |
- 4 test cases: small/big font with white/texture bg |
- 2 test cases: with white bg or texture bg |
61 |
|
- each subject reads a number of (perhaps 4) texts on the two types of |
62 |
- each subject reads a number of (perhaps 4) texts on different |
backgrounds and the time is measured |
63 |
backgrounds and sizes and the time is measured |
- font size is varied between texts and/or subjects |
64 |
|
(or should the same text be read in different sizes?) |
65 |
- the order of the test cases is random for each subject to |
- is the memory effect stronger than the variation between different texts? |
66 |
componsate memory effects |
|
|
|
|
|
- 3 subjects should do small textures |
|
|
first and the other 3 subjects big textures first |
|
|
(not sure about this; the reasoning is that the |
|
|
effect of the variation between subjects on white/texture |
|
|
discrimination is lessened at the expense of |
|
|
small/big discrimination which should be clear enough anyway) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|