A Study of Factors Influencing the Legibility of Televised Characters

Seibert, Warren F.; Kasten, Duane F.; Potter, James R.

doi:10.5594/j13807

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Small, illegible text is the most common cause of unacceptable video quality on small screens (Knoche & McCarthy, 2005). Text that was readable on a larger screen may not be readable on a small screen, as letters need to be at least one‐sixth of a degree in height to be legible (Loftus & Harley, 2005; Seibert, Kasten, & Potter, 1959). Also, smaller screens may simply not have enough lines (pixels) to render letters, because at least five lines per letter are needed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viewing Angle Matters-Screen Type Does Not

Bellman

Schweda

Varan

2009

Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, television content is available to viewers across 3 different screen types: TVs, personal computers (PCs), and portable devices such as mobile phones and iPods. The purpose of this study was to see what effect physical and apparent screen size has upon ad effectiveness. Using a sample of 320 members of the Australian public, we found that TV ads can be just as effective on PCs and iPods. However, controlling for screen type, ads viewed from a closer distance (i.e. with a wider viewing angle) were more likely to be recalled the next day, and were associated with more favorable brand attitudes. Shorter programs, product relevance, and use of close-ups and detailed images made no difference to this general viewing-angle effect.On October 12, 2005, Apple's CEO Steve Jobs launched the video iPod, holding it up to show how it could play episodes of top-rated ABC network TV shows such as Desperate Housewives, which viewers could download for just $1.99 (Wingfield & Smith, 2005, B.1). Six months later, in April 2006, Disney began making many of these same TV shows downloadable for free to iPods and personal computers (PCs) by including ads inserted in the content, which viewers were unable to skip through (Fleetwood, 2006). Today, watching video on these other screens -the PC and the ''third screen '' (Balaji, Landers, Kates, & Moritz, 2005), mobile devices like the cell phone and the video iPod -has become an essential part of everyday life for many people (O'Hara, Mitchell, & Vorbau, 2007). In TV's new landscape, advertisers will increasingly need to follow their audiences onto these other screens to ensure they reach their target markets with effective levels of exposure. In order to plan their media schedules in a new world of multiple screens, it is important for advertisers to better understand the likely impact of TV ads when they are not seen on a TV screen. This study set out to answer the question: ''Are ads seen on an iPod or a PC as effective as ads seen on a TV?''Little is known about the different effects of TV ads when seen across PC, iPod, and smaller mobile phone screens, compared to viewing them on a normal TV screen.What research has been carried out has either investigated the feasibility of showing video on these devices, rather than its effects (e.g. Heppner, Benkofske, & Moritz, 2004;Knoche, McCarthy, & Sasse, 2005), or the difficulties of creating content for portable devices, which vary so widely in operating systems and capabilities (Rondeau, 2005). Other research has compared the effects of different types of content, such as video versus still pictures, when seen on portable screens (e.g. Nasco & Bruner, 2007;Ravaja, 2004). Only a few studies have compared video content seen on small screens with the same content seen on larger screens, such as a domestic TV set (e.g. Bracken & Pettey, 2007;Kelley, 2007;Reeves, Lang, Kim, & Tatar, 1999). Those studies have compared programs rather than ads, specifically. The unique contribution of this study is that it is the first to compare ad...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viewing Angle Matters-Screen Type Does Not

Bellman

Schweda

Varan

2009

Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of the interaction between visual size and other display parameters, the minimum acceptable visual size varies and is dependent upon the values of these other parameters. Two studies (Crook et al, 195'^b, and Howell & Kraft, 1959) suggest that it is undesirable to select symbols whose height will subtend less than 15 minutes of arc at the observer's eye, while two other studies (Seibert et al, 1959;Shurtleff & Wuersch, 1979) indicate that high accuracy can be achieved with symbols whose height subtend an angle as small at 10 minutes of arc at the observer's eye.…”

Section: ^3mentioning

confidence: 99%