skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702390acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
note

Subjective and Objective Effects of Tablet's Pixel Density

Published: 18 April 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Pixel densities are increasing rapidly. We can observe this trend in particular for mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. Previous work revealed an effect of pixel density on subjective feedback and objective performance only for low resolution cathode ray tube screens. It is unclear if this effect persists for the four times higher pixel densities of current mobile devices. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare four pixel densities with 359, 180, 120, and 90 pixels per inch. While participants performed three tasks involving images, text and videos on a tablet, we measured perceived effort, perceived visual quality, task completion time, error rate, and body pose. Our results show that the effect of the pixel density highly depends on the content. We found that only for text, the four pixel densities have clearly different perceived media qualities. Pixel density seems to have a smaller effect on perceived media quality for images and videos and we found no effect on objective measures. Results show that text should be displayed in high resolution, while this is less important for images and videos.

References

[1]
Recommendation ITU-T P.910 Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU (04 2008).
[2]
Ball, R., and Hourcade, J. P. Rethinking reading for age from paper and computers. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27, 11 (2011), 1066--1082.
[3]
Chen, C.-H., and Chiang, S.-Y. Effects of screen resolution and column ratio on search performance and subjective preferences. Displays 33, 1 (2012), 28--35.
[4]
Dillon, A. Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35, 10 (1992), 1297--1326.
[5]
Huang, D.-L., Patrick Rau, P.-L., and Liu, Y. Effects of font size, display resolution and task type on reading chinese fonts from mobile devices. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39, 1 (2009), 81--89.
[6]
Menozzi, M., Lang, F., Naepflin, U., Zeller, C., and Krueger, H. Crt versus lcd: Effects of refresh rate, display technology and background luminance in visual performance. Displays 22, 3 (2001), 79--85.
[7]
Müller, H., Gove, J., and Webb, J. Understanding tablet use. In Proceedings of the international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (2012).
[8]
Sauro, J., and Dumas, J. S. Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2009), 1599--1608.
[9]
Yang, S.-n., Tai, Y.-C., Hayes, J. R., and Sheedy, J. Superior smartphone display quality enhances viewing performance and comfort. Faculty Scholarship (2011).
[10]
Ziefie, M. Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40, 4 (1998), 554--568.
[11]
Zijlstra, F., and Doorn, L. v. The construction of a scale to measure subjective effort. Tech. Rep. Delft University of Technology, Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences (1985).

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Subjective and Objective Effects of Tablet's Pixel Density

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 2015
    4290 pages
    ISBN:9781450331456
    DOI:10.1145/2702123
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 18 April 2015

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. pixel density
    2. resolution
    3. tablet

    Qualifiers

    • Note

    Funding Sources

    • DFG

    Conference

    CHI '15
    Sponsor:
    CHI '15: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 18 - 23, 2015
    Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 486 of 2,120 submissions, 23%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI '25
    CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 26 - May 1, 2025
    Yokohama , Japan

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 06 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media