ArticleASSETS. Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies2023
Screen Magnification for Readers with Low Vision: A Study on Usability and Performance.
Article in ASSETS. Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of reading performance in eyes simulated with different visual acuity and visual field impairment.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The blur paradox: Better recognition at a distance.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Alternative audio-graphic method for presenting structural information in mathematical graphs designed for low-vision users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A review of optical and digital aids for magnification techniques in low-vision rehabilitation.Journal of biological methods · 2025Review
- Reading with Screen Magnification: Eye Movement Analysis Using Compensated Gaze Tracks.Proceedings. Eye Tracking Research & Applications Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We present a study with 20 participants with low vision who operated two types of screen magnification (lens and full) on a laptop computer to read two types of document (text and web page). Our purposes were to comparatively assess the two magnification modalities, and to obtain some insight into how people with low vision use the mouse to control the center of magnification. These observations may inform the design of systems for the automatic control of the center of magnification. Our results show that there were no significant differences in reading performances or in subjective preferences between the two magnification modes. However, when using the lens mode, our participants adopted more consistent and uniform mouse motion patterns, while longer and more frequent pauses and shorter overall path lengths were measured using the full mode. Analysis of the distribution of gaze points (as measured by a gaze tracker) using the full mode shows that, when reading a text document, most participants preferred to move the area of interest to a specific region of the screen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38463538PMC10923554W4387793515What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.