Influence of Annotation Media on Proof-Reading Tasks
Authors: 
Andreas Schmid, 
Marie Sautmann, Vera Wittmann, Florian Kaindl, Philipp Schauhuber, Philipp Gottschalk, 
Raphael WimmerAuthors Info & Claims
Andreas Schmid, Marie Sautmann, Vera Wittmann, Florian Kaindl, Philipp Schauhuber, Philipp Gottschalk, Raphael WimmerAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 277 - 288
Abstract
Annotating and proof-reading documents are common tasks. Digital annotation tools provide easily searchable annotations and facilitate sharing documents and remote collaboration with others. On the other hand, advantages of paper, such as creative freedom and intuitive use, can get lost when annotating digitally. There is a large amount of research indicating that paper outperforms digital annotation tools in task time, error recall and task load. However, most research in this field is rather old and does not take into consideration increasing screen resolution and performance, as well as better input techniques in modern devices. We present three user studies comparing different annotation media in the context of proof-reading tasks. We found that annotating on paper is still faster and less stressful than with a PC or tablet computer, but the difference is significantly smaller with a state-of-the-art device. We did not find a difference in error recall, but the used medium has a strong influence on how users annotate.
References
[1]
Michelle Annett, Fraser Anderson, Walter F Bischof, and Anoop Gupta. 2014. The pen is mightier: understanding stylus behaviour while inking on tablets. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2014. 193–200.
[2]
Rebecca Dawn Baker. 2010. Comparing the Readability of Text Displays on Paper, E-Book Readers, and Small Screen Devices. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of North Texas.
[3]
James Blustein, David Rowe, Ann-Barbara Graff, James Blustein, David Rowe, and Ann-Barbara Graff. 2011. Making Sense in the Margins: A Field Study of Annotation. In International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, Heiko Schuldt (Ed.). Number 6966 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24469-8
[4]
Alan H. S. Chan, Steve N. H. Tsang, and Annie W. Y. Ng. 2014. Effects of Line Length, Line Spacing, and Line Number on Proofreading Performance and Scrolling of Chinese Text. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56, 3 (May 2014), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813499368
[5]
Guang Chen, Wei Cheng, Ting-Wen Chang, Xiaoxia Zheng, and Ronghuai Huang. 2014. A comparison of reading comprehension across paper, computer screens, and tablets: Does tablet familiarity matter?Journal of Computers in Education 1, 2-3 (Nov. 2014), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0012-z
[6]
Anthony Creed, Ian Dennis, and Stephen Newstead. 1987. Proof-reading on VDUs. Behaviour & Information Technology 6, 1 (Jan. 1987), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298708901814
[7]
Anthony Creed, Ian Dennis, and Stephen Newstead. 1988. Effects of display format on proof-reading with VDUs. Behaviour & Information Technology 7, 4 (Oct. 1988), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298808901890
[8]
Sally Jo Cunningham, Chris Knowles, Sally Jo Cunningham, and Chris Knowles. 2005. Annotations in an Academic Digital Library: The Case of Conference Note-Taking and Annotation. In International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, Pimrumpai Premsmit and Vilas Wuwongse (Eds.). Number 3815 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 62–71.
[9]
C. Desmoulins and D. Mille. 2002. Pattern-based annotations on E-books: from personal to shared didactic content. In Proceedings. IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. IEEE Comput. Soc, Vaxjo, Sweden, 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039224
[10]
Andrew Dillon. 1992. Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35, 10 (Oct. 1992), 1297–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967394
[11]
Thomas Franke, Christiane Attig, and Daniel Wessel. 2017. Assessing Affinity for Technology Interaction – The Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. Scale Description – English and German Scale Version. (2017). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28679.50081 Publisher: Unpublished.
[12]
Thomas Franke, Christiane Attig, and Daniel Wessel. 2019. A Personal Resource for Technology Interaction: Development and Validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 35, 6 (April 2019), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150
[13]
Fei Gao. 2013. A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning. The Internet and Higher Education 17 (April 2013), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.002
[14]
Sabrina Gerth, Annegret Klassert, Thomas Dolk, Michael Fliesser, Martin H. Fischer, Guido Nottbusch, and Julia Festman. 2016. Is Handwriting Performance Affected by the Writing Surface? Comparing Preschoolers’, Second Graders’, and Adults’ Writing Performance on a Tablet vs. Paper. Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01308
[15]
John D. Gould, Lizette Alfaro, Vincent Barnes, Rich Finn, Nancy Grischkowsky, and Angela Minuto. 1987. Reading Is Slower from CRT Displays than from Paper: Attempts to Isolate a Single-Variable Explanation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 29, 3 (June 1987), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088702900303
[16]
John D. Gould and Nancy Grischkowsky. 1984. Doing the Same Work with Hard Copy and with Cathode-Ray Tube (CRT) Computer Terminals. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 26, 3 (June 1984), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088402600308
[17]
Francois Guimbretiere. 2003. Paper augmented digital documents. In Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 51–60.
[18]
Sandra G Hart. 2006. Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 50th annual meeting 50, 9 (2006), 904–908.
[19]
Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Advances in Psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
[20]
Isabella Hastreiter, Manuel Burghardt, David Elsweiler, and Christian Wolff. 2013. Digitale Annotation im akademischen Kontext: Empirische Untersuchung zur Annotationspraxis von Studierenden auf Tablet-Computern. 63 (2013), 118–129.
[21]
Hanho Jeong. 2012. A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library 30, 3 (June 2012), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471211241663
[22]
Ricardo Kawase, Eelco Herder, Wolfgang Nejdl, Ricardo Kawase, Eelco Herder, and Wolfgang Nejdl. 2009. A Comparison of Paper-Based and Online Annotations in the Workplace. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04636-0_23 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
[23]
Kibum Kim, Scott Turner, and Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones. 2004. Comparing Classroom Note Taking across Multiplatform Devices. (2004). https://doi.org/10.1145/3044715
[24]
Kristof Korwisi. 2014. Papier- und computergestützte Annotationsverfahren im Vergleich. (2014).
[25]
Akrivi Krouska, Christos Troussas, and Maria Virvou. 2018. Social Annotation Tools in Digital Learning: A Literature Review. In 2018 9th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA). IEEE, Zakynthos, Greece, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IISA.2018.8633609
[26]
Maja Köpper, Susanne Mayr, and Axel Buchner. 2016. Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference?Ergonomics 59, 5 (2016), 615–632. Publisher: Taylor & Francis.
[27]
Wolfgang Lenhard, Ulrich Schroeders, and Alexandra Lenhard. 2017. Equivalence of Screen Versus Print Reading Comprehension Depends on Task Complexity and Proficiency. Discourse Processes 54, 5-6 (July 2017), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1319653
[28]
Catherine C. Marshall. 1997. Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. In Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries - DL ’97. ACM Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1145/263690.263806
[29]
Catherine C Marshall. 1998. The future of annotation in a digital (paper) world. Successes & Failures of Digital Libraries:[papers presented at the 1998 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, March 22-24, 1998] (1998).
[30]
Catherine C. Marshall. 1998. Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia : links, objects, time and space—structure in hypermedia systems links, objects, time and space—structure in hypermedia systems - HYPERTEXT ’98. ACM Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/276627.276632
[31]
Catherine C. Marshall and A. J. Bernheim Brush. 2004. Exploring the relationship between personal and public annotations. In Proceedings of the 2004 joint ACM/IEEE conference on Digital libraries - JCDL ’04. ACM Press, Tuscon, AZ, USA, 349. https://doi.org/10.1145/996350.996432
[32]
M. Menozzi, F. Lang, U. Naepflin, C. Zeller, and H. Krueger. 2001. CRT versus LCD: Effects of refresh rate, display technology and background luminance in visual performance. Displays 22, 3 (2001), 79–85. Publisher: Elsevier.
[33]
Paul Muter, Susane A. Latrémouille, William C. Treurniet, and Paul Beam. 1982. Extended Reading of Continuous Text on Television Screens. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 24, 5 (Oct. 1982), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088202400501
[34]
Kenton O’Hara and Abigail Sellen. 1997. A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Atlanta Georgia USA, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258787
[35]
Ilia A. Ovsiannikov, Michael A. Arbib, and Thomas H. Mcneill. 1999. Annotation technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 50, 4 (April 1999), 329–362. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0247
[36]
Jennifer Pearson, George Buchanan, and Harold Thimbleby. 2009. Improving Annotations in Digital Documents. In Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, Maristella Agosti, José Borbinha, Sarantos Kapidakis, Christos Papatheodorou, and Giannis Tsakonas (Eds.). Vol. 5714. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 429–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04346-8_51
[37]
Bill N. Schilit, Gene Golovchinsky, and Morgan N. Price. 1998. Beyond Paper: Supporting Active Reading with Free Form Digital Ink Annotations. ACM Press, 249–256.
[38]
Jordan T Schugar, Heather Schugar, and Christian Penny. 2011. A Nook or a Book? Comparing College Students’ Reading Comprehension Levels, Critical Reading, and Study Skills. International Journal of Technology in Tea ching and Learning 7, 2 (2011).
[39]
Abigail Sellen and Richard Harper. 1997. Paper as an analytic resource for the design of new technologies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Atlanta Georgia USA, 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258780
[40]
Hirohito Shibata and Kentaro Takano. 2014. Reading from paper versus reading from a touch-based tablet device in proofreading. In IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. IEEE, London, United Kingdom, 433–434. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2014.6970211
[41]
Eva Siegenthaler, Pascal Wurtz, Per Bergamin, and Rudolf Groner. 2011. Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays 32, 5 (Dec. 2011), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005
[42]
Lauren M. Singer and Patricia A. Alexander. 2017. Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of Empirical Research Reveal. Review of Educational Research 87, 6 (Dec. 2017), 1007–1041. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961
[43]
Jurgen Steimle, Iryna Gurevych, and Max Muhlhauser. 2007. Notetaking in University Courses and its Implications for eLearning Systems. DeLFI 2007: 5. e-Learning FachtagungInformatik der Gesellschaft für Informatik eV (GI) (2007).
[44]
Hildegunn Støle, Anne Mangen, and Knut Schwippert. 2020. Assessing children’s reading comprehension on paper and screen: A mode-effect study. Computers & Education 151 (July 2020), 103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103861
[45]
Patty Wharton-Michael. 2008. Print vs. Computer Screen: Effects of Medium on Proofreading Accuracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 63, 1 (March 2008), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769580806300103
[46]
R. T. Wilkinson* and Helen M. Robinshaw. 1987. Proof-reading: VDU and paper text compared for speed, accuracy and fatigue. Behaviour & Information Technology 6, 2 (April 1987), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298708901822
[47]
Joanna Wolfe. 2002. Annotation technologies: A software and research review. Computers and Composition 19, 4 (2002), 471–497. Publisher: Elsevier.
[48]
P. Wright and A. Lickorish. 1983. Proof-reading texts on screen and paper. Behaviour & Information Technology 2, 3 (July 1983), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298308914479
[49]
P. Wright and A. Lickorish. 1984. Ease of annotation in proof-reading tasks. Behaviour & Information Technology 3, 3 (July 1984), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298408901750
Index Terms
- Influence of Annotation Media on Proof-Reading Tasks
Recommendations
Enhancement of Digital Reading Performance by Using a Novel Web-Based Collaborative Reading Annotation System with Two Quality Annotation Extraction Mechanisms
IIAI-AAI '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IIAI 4th International Congress on Advanced Applied InformaticsA web-based collaborative reading annotation system (WCRAS) allows learners to collaborate efficiently in annotating digital texts for adding valued information, share ideas by expressing different perspectives on digital texts with annotations, and ...
Enhancement of digital reading performance by using a novel web-based collaborative reading annotation system with two quality annotation filtering mechanisms
Collaboratively annotating digital texts allows learners to add valued information, share ideas, and create knowledge. However, excessive annotations and poor-quality annotations in a digital text may cause information overload and divert attention from ...
Incorporating GENETAG-style annotation to GENIA corpus
BioNLP '09: Proceedings of the Workshop on Current Trends in Biomedical Natural Language ProcessingProteins and genes are the most important entities in molecular biology, and their automated recognition in text is the most widely studied task in biomedical information extraction (IE). Several corpora containing annotation for these entities have ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2023
593 pages
ISBN:9798400707711
DOI:10.1145/3603555
Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 03 September 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
MuC '23
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 262Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)236
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in