pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27010 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

Quantifying the Cost of Manual Navigation: A Comparison of Gesture-Based Magnification versus Direct Access Reading in Digital Layout-based Documents

Sebasti\'an Gallardo (BIOVISION , DAJ) , Hui-Yin Wu (BIOVISION) , Dorian Mazauric (ABSLab (Poitiers) , Terra Numerica) , Pierre Kornprobst (UniCA , BIOVISION , ABSLab (Poitiers))
show 4 more authors
Monica Di Meo (CHU) St\'ephanie Baillif (CHU) Aurelie Calabrese (AMU LPC)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords digital documentsgesture-based magnificationlarge-print editionsreading performanceaccessibilitynewspaper readingnavigation costbehavioral analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Large-print editions of layout-based documents improve reading speed by 18 percent and restore natural strategies compared to gesture-based magnification.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares gesture-based magnification, the standard way to handle small text in digital newspapers, against large-print editions that allow direct access without manual zooming or panning. It measures performance on headline reading and target location tasks, along with reading paths and workload ratings. The large-print version shows clear gains in speed and lets readers follow their usual headline-first approach, which gestures tend to break. This matters for anyone using phones or tablets to read structured content, because current interfaces force extra navigation steps that slow people down and raise effort.

Core claim

In tasks where participants read all headlines aloud and located target articles, the large-print edition with direct structural access produced 18 percent faster reading speed and 30 percent faster target location than the original edition using gesture-based pan and zoom. Reading path analysis showed that large-print restored the natural strategy of starting with headlines, which gesture magnification disrupts. Participants also reported lower workload on NASA-TLX scales and higher preference for the large-print condition. These outcomes were quantified with linear mixed-effects models.

What carries the argument

Direct comparison of gesture-based magnification (pinch, zoom, and pan) versus large-print direct-access reading, evaluated via completion times, success ratios, reading path analysis, and NASA-TLX workload scores.

If this is right

  • Large-print editions support faster headline scanning and target location in layout-based documents.
  • Natural reading strategies remain intact when direct structural access replaces gesture navigation.
  • Perceived workload drops and user preference rises under direct-access conditions.
  • Automated generation of large-print editions should combine font scaling with layout adaptation to maintain accessibility.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same navigation cost could appear in other structured media such as e-books or web articles where readers must repeatedly zoom to follow headings.
  • Interfaces that eliminate manual navigation entirely might yield further gains beyond what large-print currently achieves.
  • Designers could test whether similar direct-access adaptations improve performance for users with reduced dexterity or in mobile contexts with limited screen space.

Load-bearing premise

Any performance or strategy differences between the original gesture edition and the large-print edition stem only from the presence or absence of manual navigation and not from layout, font rendering, or page structure changes introduced when preparing the large-print version.

What would settle it

A controlled replication that keeps layout and rendering identical across conditions but removes the need for gestures, then measures whether the speed and strategy advantages disappear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27010 by ABSLab (Poitiers)), Aurelie Calabrese (AMU, BIOVISION, DAJ), Dorian Mazauric (ABSLab (Poitiers), Hui-Yin Wu (BIOVISION), LPC), Monica Di Meo (CHU), Pierre Kornprobst (UniCA, Sebasti\'an Gallardo (BIOVISION, St\'ephanie Baillif (CHU), Terra Numerica).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental protocol for quantifying the behavioral and performance cost of digital newspaper consumption under view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the study. This figure illustrates the view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of newspaper pages: (a) original edition view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental condition setup based on CPS. (a) view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Task 1 timeline. After stimulus onset (time view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of reading path corresponding to the view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average similarity to reference path vs average view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reading and transition time per condition (Task view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Completion time per condition (Task 2), only suc view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NASA-TLX average scores for each question, for view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding how diverse audiences engage with structured media is critical to ensure a consistent quality of experience. In this context, we quantify the behavioral and performance cost of manual navigation (e.g., pinch and zoom) versus direct structural access in layout-based digital documents. We specifically investigate newspaper reading when visual access to structural cues (headlines as entry points) is constrained. Participants completed two tasks-reading all headlines aloud and locating target articles-under two conditions: (1) original edition with gesture-based magnification (pan and zoom), which is the industry standard for digital documents, and (2) large-print edition supporting direct-access reading. We collected performance measures (success ratio and completion time), behavioral integrity through reading path analysis, alongside perceived workload and preferences (NASA-TLX). Results from linear mixed-effects models show that the large-print condition yielded not only better performance than gesture-based magnification (18% improvement in reading speed, 30% improvement in speed to locate a target), but more importantly, restored the natural reading strategy that gesture-based magnification interaction disrupts. Readers also reported lower workload and higher preference. These findings highlight the importance of developing automated methods for generating large-print editions, where layout adaptation complements font scaling to support accessibility and quality of experience.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports an empirical user study comparing two conditions for reading layout-based digital newspapers: (1) the original edition using gesture-based magnification (pinch/zoom and pan) and (2) a large-print edition enabling direct structural access. Participants performed headline-reading and target-location tasks; linear mixed-effects models on performance data, reading-path analysis, NASA-TLX workload scores, and preference ratings are claimed to show that the large-print condition produces 18% faster reading speed, 30% faster target location, restored natural reading strategies, lower workload, and higher preference.

Significance. If the performance and behavioral differences can be causally attributed to the presence versus absence of manual navigation after ruling out confounds, the work would offer concrete quantitative evidence on interaction costs in digital documents and motivate automated layout-adaptation techniques for accessibility in HCI.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim attributes the reported 18% reading-speed improvement, 30% target-location improvement, and restoration of natural reading strategies (from linear mixed-effects models and path analysis) solely to elimination of gesture-based manual navigation. However, the large-print edition is prepared by font scaling that typically also alters layout, column widths, headline positioning, reflow, or page structure; these changes independently affect visual entry points and reading paths, so the models cannot isolate the navigation variable without explicit controls or equivalence verification on document structure between conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Participant count, exact task protocols, raw data availability, and precise statistical outputs (e.g., p-values, effect sizes, model coefficients) are not reported, limiting assessment of the linear mixed-effects results.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The behavioral-integrity finding from reading-path analysis is stated but lacks definition of the path metrics or quantitative comparison between conditions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The concern about potential confounds in document structure between conditions is well-taken, and we address it directly below with a commitment to revisions that clarify the experimental controls.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim attributes the reported 18% reading-speed improvement, 30% target-location improvement, and restoration of natural reading strategies (from linear mixed-effects models and path analysis) solely to elimination of gesture-based manual navigation. However, the large-print edition is prepared by font scaling that typically also alters layout, column widths, headline positioning, reflow, or page structure; these changes independently affect visual entry points and reading paths, so the models cannot isolate the navigation variable without explicit controls or equivalence verification on document structure between conditions.

    Authors: We agree that font scaling can introduce layout changes and that isolating the navigation cost requires explicit verification of structural equivalence. In our preparation of the large-print condition, we used the same base document templates and scaled only font sizes while preserving column widths, headline positions, and overall page structure to the extent possible within the digital rendering engine; however, we acknowledge that the manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on these steps or include quantitative checks (e.g., comparison of element positions or reflow metrics) to fully rule out confounds. We will revise the Methods section to describe the exact document-generation procedure, add verification steps or metrics demonstrating structural similarity, and update the abstract to frame the results as comparing standard gesture-based access on the original layout versus direct-access reading on the adapted large-print layout. This will strengthen the causal attribution while preserving the core contribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical user study grounded in collected data

full rationale

The paper reports a controlled user study with performance metrics, reading-path analysis, NASA-TLX scores, and linear mixed-effects modeling of behavioral data. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citations appear as load-bearing premises for the central claims. All results derive from participant observations under the two conditions rather than from any self-referential construction or ansatz. The study is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no reduction of outputs to inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the experimental conditions isolate navigation cost and that standard statistical models apply to the behavioral data collected. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Linear mixed-effects models appropriately capture repeated measures from the same participants across conditions.
    Invoked implicitly when reporting model results for performance and workload data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5598 in / 1283 out tokens · 73998 ms · 2026-05-07T13:06:34.873710+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Carlos Aguilar and Eric Castet. 2017. Evaluation of a gaze-controlled vision enhancement system for reading in visually impaired people.PLOS ONE12, 4 (04 2017), 1–24. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174910

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174910 2017

  2. [2]

    Mistral AI. 2025. MistralAI. https://mistral.ai/. Accessed: September 6th, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    2020.Direct Manipulation of AI Text via Gestures

    Ahmad Aljoudi. 2020.Direct Manipulation of AI Text via Gestures. Bachelor’s Thesis. Malmö University, Faculty of Culture and Society (KS), School of Arts and Communication (K3)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Monteiro

    Fernando Almeida and J. Monteiro. 2017. The role of responsive design in web development.Webology14 (12 2017), 48–65

    2017

  5. [5]

    Zainab Almeraj and Asmaa Alsumait. 2019. A User Centered Design Roadmap for Researchers and Designers Working with Visually Impaired and Blind Children. InACHI 2019 : The Twelfth International Conference on Advances in Computer- Human Interactions. IARIA, Athens, Greece

    2019

  6. [6]

    Raheemat Atata. 2025. Evaluating Visual Hierarchies and Navigation Patterns to Improve Accessibility.International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews 6, 8 (Aug. 2025), 617–641. doi:10.55248/gengpi.6.0825.3080

    work page doi:10.55248/gengpi.6.0825.3080 2025

  7. [7]

    Nilsu Atilgan, Ying-Zi Xiong, and Gordon E. Legge. 2020. Reconciling print-size and display-size constraints on reading.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 48 (2020), 30276–30284. doi:10.1073/pnas.2007514117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2007514117 2020

  8. [8]

    Max Bain, Jaesung Huh, Tengda Han, and Andrew Zisserman. 2023. WhisperX: Time-Accurate Speech Transcription of Long-Form Audio. arXiv:2303.00747 [cs.SD] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00747

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Beckmann and Gordon E

    Paul J. Beckmann and Gordon E. Legge. 1996. Psychophysics of Reading—XIV. The Page Navigation Problem in Using Magnifiers.Vision Research36, 22 (Nov. 1996), 3723–3733. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(96)00084-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0042-6989(96)00084-3 1996

  10. [10]

    Alex Bowers, Allen Cheong, and Jan Lovie-Kitchin. 2007. Reading With Optical Magnifiers: Page Navigation Strategies and Difficulties.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry84 (02 2007), 9–20. doi:10.1097/01.opx.0000254035.39055.05 Gesture-Based Magnification versus Direct Access Reading IMX ’26, June 09–11,...

    work page doi:10.1097/01.opx.0000254035.39055.05 2007

  11. [11]

    Raluca Budiu. 2015. Mobile User Experience: Limitations and Strengths. https: //www.nngroup.com/articles/mobile-ux/. Accessed: August 25th, 2025

    2015

  12. [12]

    Mila Bujić, Mikko Salminen, and Juho Hamari. 2023. More Immersed but Less Present: Unpacking Factors of Presence Across Devices. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences(Nantes, France) (IMX ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 140–149. doi:10.1145/3573381.3596152

    work page doi:10.1145/3573381.3596152 2023

  13. [13]

    2001.Zoomable User Interfaces on Small Screens - Presentation Interaction Design for Pen-Operated Mobile Devices

    Thorsten Büring. 2001.Zoomable User Interfaces on Small Screens - Presentation Interaction Design for Pen-Operated Mobile Devices. PhD Thesis. University of Konstanz

    2001

  14. [14]

    Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA)(CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 981–992. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858498

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858498 2016

  15. [15]

    Aurélie Calabrèse, Allen M. Y. Cheong, Sing-Hang Cheung, Yingchen He, MiY- oung Kwon, J. Stephen Mansfield, Ahalya Subramanian, Deyue Yu, and Gordon E. Legge. 2016. Baseline MNREAD Measures for Normally Sighted Subjects From Childhood to Old Age.Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science57, 8 (July 2016), 3836. doi:10.1167/iovs.16-19580

    work page doi:10.1167/iovs.16-19580 2016

  16. [16]

    Andrew P. Chesham. 2003.Poetry and eBooks: Managing Fixed Layouts in Reflow- able Text. Master’s Thesis. University of Simon Fraser

    2003

  17. [17]

    Chiou, Robert Winn, Ali S

    Paul T. Chiou, Robert Winn, Ali S. Alotaibi, and William G. J. Halfond. 2024. Automatically Detecting Reflow Accessibility Issues in Responsive Web Pages. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3597503.3639229

    work page doi:10.1145/3597503.3639229 2024

  18. [18]

    Michael Christen and Mathias Abegg. 2017. The Effect of Magnification and Contrast on Reading Performance in Different Types of Simulated Low Vision. Journal of Eye Movement Research10 (05 2017). doi:10.16910/jemr.10.2.5

    work page doi:10.16910/jemr.10.2.5 2017

  19. [19]

    Shao Jing Ding, Ernest Tak Hei Lam, Dickson KW Chiu, Mavis Man wai Lung, and Kevin KW Ho. 2021. Changes in reading behaviour of periodicals on mobile devices: A comparative study.Journal of Librarianship and Information Science53, 2 (2021), 233–244. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620938119 doi:10.1177/ 0961000620938119

    work page doi:10.1177/0961000620938119 2021

  20. [20]

    Sukru Eraslan, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper. 2015. Eye tracking scanpath analysis techniques on web pages: A survey, evaluation and comparison.Journal of Eye Movement Research9, 1 (2015), 2. doi:10.16910/jemr.9.1.2

    work page doi:10.16910/jemr.9.1.2 2015

  21. [21]

    Sebastian Gallardo, María Cristina Riff, Dorian Mazauric, and Pierre Kornprobst

  22. [22]

    Newspaper Magnification with Preserved Entry Points. (Sept. 2023). https: //hal.science/hal-04210840 working paper or preprint

    2023

  23. [23]

    Crossland, and Gordon E

    Christina Granquist, Yueh-Hsun Wu, Rachel Gage, Michael D. Crossland, and Gordon E. Legge. 2018. How People with Low Vision Achieve Magnification in Digital Reading.Optometry and Vision Science95, 9 (Sept. 2018), 711–719. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001261

    work page doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001261 2018

  24. [24]

    André Hajek, Razak Gyasi, Benedikt Kretzler, and Hans-Helmut König. 2023. Vision and hearing problems and psychosocial outcomes: longitudinal evidence from the German Ageing Survey.Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 59 (11 2023), 1–8. doi:10.1007/s00127-023-02588-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00127-023-02588-9 2023

  25. [25]

    Sandra G. Hart. 2006. Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later.Pro- ceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting50, 9 (2006), 904–908. doi:10.1177/154193120605000909

    work page doi:10.1177/154193120605000909 2006

  26. [26]

    Seongsil Heo, Roberto Manduchi, and Suzana Chung. 2024. Reading with Screen Magnification: Eye Movement Analysis Using Compensated Gaze Tracks. In Proceedings of the 2024 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, Glasgow United Kingdom, 1–6. doi:10.1145/3649902.3656493

    work page doi:10.1145/3649902.3656493 2024

  27. [27]

    Hollander, Dean M

    Barry A. Hollander, Dean M. Krugman, Tom Reichert, and J. Adam Avant. 2011. The E-Reader as Replacement for the Print Newspaper.Pub Res Q27 (2011), 126–134. doi:10.1007/s12109-011-9205-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s12109-011-9205-8 2011

  28. [28]

    2004.Eye movement patterns and newspaper design factors: An experimental approach

    Nils Holmberg. 2004.Eye movement patterns and newspaper design factors: An experimental approach. Master’s Thesis. Lund University, Cognitive Science, Lund, Sweden

    2004

  29. [29]

    2005.The role of local design factors for newspaper reading behaviour: An eye-tracking perspective

    Kenneth Holmqvist and Constanze Wartenberg. 2005.The role of local design factors for newspaper reading behaviour: An eye-tracking perspective. LUCS Report

    2005

  30. [30]

    ISSN 1101-8453

    Lund University, Cognitive Studies, Lund, Sweden. ISSN 1101-8453

  31. [31]

    Jana Holsanova, Henrik Rahm, and Kenneth Holmqvist. 2006. Entry points and reading paths on newspaper spreads: comparing a semiotic analysis with eye- tracking measurements.Visual Communication5, 1 (Feb. 2006), 65–93. doi:10. 1177/1470357206061005

    2006

  32. [32]

    Bederson, and Catherine Plaisant

    Kasper Hornbæk, Benjamin B. Bederson, and Catherine Plaisant. 2002. Navigation patterns and usability of zoomable user interfaces with and without an overview. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.9, 4 (Dec. 2002), 362–389. doi:10.1145/586081. 586086

    work page doi:10.1145/586081 2002

  33. [33]

    Jacob and Keith S

    Robert J.K. Jacob and Keith S. Karn. 2003. Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research: Ready to Deliver the Promises. InThe Mind’s Eye, J. Hyönä, R. Radach, and H. Deubel (Eds.). North-Holland, Amsterdam, 573–605. doi:10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50031-1

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-044451020-4/50031-1 2003

  34. [34]

    2017.Research methods in human-computer interaction(second edition ed.)

    Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017.Research methods in human-computer interaction(second edition ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, an imprint of Elsevier, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2017

  35. [35]

    Gordon Legge. 2016. Reading Digital with Low Vision.Visible language50 (08 2016), 102–125

    2016

  36. [36]

    Gordon E. Legge. 2006.Psychophysics of reading in normal and low vision / Gordon E. Legge and colleagues.Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    2006

  37. [37]

    Legge, John A

    Gordon E. Legge, John A. Ross, L. Michael Isenberg, and J. M. LaMay. 1992. Psychophysics of Reading—Clinical Predictors of Low-Vision Reading Speed. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science33, 3 (1992), 677–687

    1992

  38. [38]

    Stephen Mansfield, Sonia J

    J. Stephen Mansfield, Sonia J. Ahn, Gordon E. Legge, and Andrew Luebker. 1993. Commentary on Section 4 - A New Reading-Acuity Chart for Normal and Low Vision, In Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System.Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System, NSuD.3. doi:10.1364/NAVS.1993.NSuD.3

    work page doi:10.1364/navs.1993.nsud.3 1993

  39. [39]

    Ethan Marcotte. 2010. Responsive Web Design. https://alistapart.com/article/ responsive-web-design/. Accessed: December 3rd, 2025

    2010

  40. [40]

    Kate Moran. 2016. Reading Content on Mobile Devices. https://www.nngroup. com/articles/mobile-content/. Accessed: August 18th, 2025

    2016

  41. [41]

    Jakob Nielsen. 2011. Mobile Content Is Twice as Difficult. https://www.nngroup. com/articles/mobile-content-is-twice-as-difficult-2011/. Accessed: August 25th, 2025

    2011

  42. [42]

    Flatla, Thomas Driscoll, Graham Quinlan, and Kyle Lukaszek

    Denis Nikitenko, Jordan Evans, David R. Flatla, Thomas Driscoll, Graham Quinlan, and Kyle Lukaszek. 2024. Situational visual impairments on mobile devices - modeling the effects of bright outdoor environments. InProceedings of the 50th Graphics Interface Conference(Halifax, NS, Canada)(GI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Artic...

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Kenton O’Hara and Abigail Sellen. 1997. A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. InProceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Atlanta, Georgia, USA)(CHI ’97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 335–342. doi:10.1145/258549.258787

    work page doi:10.1145/258549.258787 1997

  44. [44]

    Ðurđana Ozretić Došen and Lidija Brkljačić. 2018. Key design elements of daily newspapers: Impact on the reader’s perception and visual impression.KOME (Aug. 2018). doi:10.17646/KOME.75692.93

    work page doi:10.17646/kome.75692.93 2018

  45. [45]

    Ar Poorva Priyadarshini. 2024. The Impact of User Interface Design on User Engagement.International Journal of Engineering Research13, 03 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    R Project. 2025. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.r- project.org/. Accessed: September 6th, 2025

    2025

  47. [47]

    Zhanna Sarsenbayeva, Niels van Berkel, Chu Luo, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jorge Goncalves. 2017. Challenges of situational impairments during interaction with mobile devices. InProceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer- Human Interaction(Brisbane, Queensland, Australia)(OzCHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 477–4...

    work page doi:10.1145/3152771 2017

  48. [48]

    Shimray, Chennupati Keerti, and Chennupati K

    Somipam R. Shimray, Chennupati Keerti, and Chennupati K. Ramaiah. 2015. An Overview of Mobile Reading Habits.DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology35, 5 (2015), 343–354

    2015

  49. [49]

    Shneiderman. 1983. Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Lan- guages.Computer16, 8 (Aug. 1983), 57–69. doi:10.1109/MC.1983.1654471

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.1983.1654471 1983

  50. [50]

    Meini Tang, Roberto Manduchi, Susana Chung, and Raquel Prado. 2023. Screen Magnification for Readers with Low Vision: A Study on Usability and Perfor- mance. InThe 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, New York NY USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3597638.3608383

    work page doi:10.1145/3597638.3608383 2023

  51. [51]

    Tigwell, Rachel Menzies, and David R

    Garreth W. Tigwell, Rachel Menzies, and David R. Flatla. 2018. Designing for Situational Visual Impairments: Supporting Early-Career Designers of Mobile Content. InProceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Hong Kong, China)(DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 387–399. doi:10.1145/3196709.3196760

    work page doi:10.1145/3196709.3196760 2018

  52. [52]

    The New York Times. 1967. Times Begins an Edition Printed in Large Type. https://www.nytimes.com/1967/03/06/archives/times-begins-an-edition- printed-in-large-type.html. Accessed: August 14th, 2025

    1967

  53. [53]

    Valsecchi, K

    M. Valsecchi, K. R. Gegenfurtner, and A. C. Schutz. 2013. Saccadic and smooth- pursuit eye movements during reading of drifting texts.Journal of Vision13, 10 (Aug. 2013), 8–8. doi:10.1167/13.10.8

    work page doi:10.1167/13.10.8 2013

  54. [54]

    Radu-Daniel Vatavu. 2021. Accessibility of Interactive Television and Media Experiences: Users with Disabilities Have Been Little Voiced at IMX and TVX. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences(Virtual Event, USA)(IMX ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 218–222. doi:10.1145/3452918.3465485

    work page doi:10.1145/3452918.3465485 2021

  55. [55]

    W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). 2018. Understanding SC 1.4.10: Re- flow (Level AA). https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/reflow.html. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Accessed 2025-08-13. Understanding docu- ment for WCAG 2.1, SC 1.4.10

    2018

  56. [56]

    Chiu, Kevin K.W

    Peng Wang, Dickson K.W. Chiu, Kevin K.W. Ho, and Patrick Lo. 2016. Why read it on your mobile device? Change in reading habit of electronic magazines for university students.The Journal of Academic Librarianship42, 6 (2016), 664–669. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.08.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.08.007 2016

  57. [57]

    Ru Wang, Zach Potter, Yun Ho, Daniel Killough, Linxiu Zeng, Sanbrita Mondal, and Yuhang Zhao. 2024. GazePrompt: Enhancing Low Vision People’s Reading Experience with Gaze-Aware Augmentations. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–17. doi:10. IMX ’26, June 09–11, 2026, Athlone, Ireland Gallardo, ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Ru Wang, Linxiu Zeng, Xinyong Zhang, Sanbrita Mondal, and Yuhang Zhao

  59. [59]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Understanding How Low Vision People Read Using Eye Tracking. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581213

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581213 2023

  60. [60]

    Fletcher, and Gordon E

    Ying-Zi Xiong, Nilsu Atilgan, Donald C. Fletcher, and Gordon E. Legge. 2022. Digital Reading with Low Vision: Principles for Selecting Display Size.Optometry and Vision Science99, 8 (Aug. 2022), 655–661. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001919

    work page doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001919 2022

  61. [61]

    Kun Yue, Mingshan Zhang, Jingruo Chen, Chun Yu, Kexin Nie, Zhiqi Gao, Jinghan Yang, Chen Liang, and Yuanchun Shi. 2024. SituFont: A Just-in-Time Adaptive Intervention System for Enhancing Mobile Readability in Situational Visual Impairments. (12 Oct. 2024). arXiv:2410.09562 https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09562

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Li Yujian and Liu Bo. 2007. A Normalized Levenshtein Distance Metric.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence29, 6 (2007), 1091–1095. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2007.1078

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2007.1078 2007

  63. [63]

    Daniela Zambarbieri, Elena Carniglia, and Carlo Robino. 2008. Eye Tracking Analysis in Reading Online Newspapers.Journal of Eye Movement Research2, 4 (Nov. 2008), 7. doi:10.16910/jemr.2.4.7 Gesture-Based Magnification versus Direct Access Reading IMX ’26, June 09–11, 2026, Athlone, Ireland Appendix: Linear-mixed effects model ANOV A tables Task 1 success ...

    work page doi:10.16910/jemr.2.4.7 2008