Proof-reading: VDU and paper text compared for speed, accuracy and fatigue

Abstract

Abstract Proof-reading on either a cathode ray tube visual display unit (VDU) of average quality or on conventional paper typescript was carried out for four 50–min sessions, two in each condition. The method of signalling errors in the script was identical in each case: verbally and by line reference. VDU scripts were presented in a standard Wordstar format; paper text was a normal print-out of that script. With the VDU as compared to paper, more proof-reading errors were missed, fewer pages were read, and there was a greater accumulation of fatigue during the reading session as indexed by an increase in the number of errors missed. It is suggested that (i) material be printed for proof-reading, and (ii) the present technique be used for comparison of different VDUs for speed and accuracy of reading and resistance to fatigue.