Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2020 September 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 9

Normal reading distance

A figure often given for "normal reading distance" is 40 cm (16 in).^[1][2][3] But K.-K. Shieh and D.-S. Lee (2007) (doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.06.008) cite the book Human Factors in Engineering and Design (1992 edition) for the statement that "when reading a book or paper-like material, the normal reading distance is usually somewhere between 305 and 406 mm, with a mean of 355 mm." That is awfully precise for something that is quite variable, made vague by "usually". It makes a considerable difference whether the distance of 5 cm between the reported mean and the upper/lower bound is the estimated statistical dispersion, or the 2 sigma associated with the two-sided p = 0.05], or something else. If the latter, 40 cm is somewhat unusual. The uncanny 1 mm precision suggests that this is based on a large number of measurements, but given the general character of the book, covering a wide range of issues, it seems unlikely that the authors performed the measurements themselves. My question is: where did the data come from and how should the spread be interpreted? (Using Google Books I only see unhelpful snippets.) Also, are there other (authoritative) sources that do not just parrot what everyone else is saying?  --Lambiam 17:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we looking for a normal in the sense of "the average human" (for any given definition of "average") or are we looking for normal in the sense of "established standard for the purpose of having an agreed-upon value just so we can cut down on variables"? The first will be necessarily fuzzy and imprecise, but closer to actual human usage, the second will be more precise (and thus useful as a standard) but arbitrary and only coincidentally close to a real human average. Which sort of value are you looking for? Because both are useful in different situations. --Jayron32 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

And me with 20/60 vision reads everything at 10 inches cause it degrades after 12 without squinting or optics (I got to 20/15 with optometrist thingy before she stopped, could've done 20/12 probably). Why wouldn't you want your book to be full Quatro HD anyway? 16 inches is wasted resolution. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is the "we" who is looking for a normal in some sense? Personally I'm satisfied with my customary reading distance without comparing it to a supposed norm. But it would be nice to have an authoritative source for linking to in articles that mention the concept (Naked eye, Optics, Visual system). If the source is any good, they'll surely also define what they mean by "normal" in the context. I'm not happy with citing just any odd source; although 40 cm; is frequently mentioned, equally "reliable" sources give sometimes considerably different values. I also think the concept is sufficiently notable that it should actually deserve an article of its own – or perhaps a dedicated section of an article with a wider scope and less normative title, such as "Viewing distance".  --Lambiam 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There are smartphone and tablet distance standards which are further for tablet or maybe I'm misremembering something where a corporation really pushes "typical distance" to make their minutes of arc look better. There's also a desktop computer rule of thumb that I can't focus at and it's too close for myopia glasses without slow eye damage. 19 to 24 inches according to this probably trustworthy image I've downloaded from god-knows where. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If you can touch the screen with your arm without moving your head and shoulders closer, it's too close.^{[citation needed]} 93.136.121.193 (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

^{If I can't touch it it's at least 3 times too far. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)}

The 305, 406 numbers would have been derived from 1 foot and 1 foot 4 inches, which does not have so many significant figures. But if a scientist or serious medical practitioner has been using feet, they must have been doing this measurement long-long ago, and so is likely seriously out of date, from the pre-computer/mobile phone era. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a perfect explanation of the uncanny (and apparently totally unwarranted) precision. Presumably they just copied what someone wrote, something like "normally between 12 and 16 inches", and went metric and overboard on that. And the arithmetic mean of these two possibly guesstimated measures, converted to mm while rounding, is 355.5 mm, which, with a regrettable loss of precision :), was rounded down to 355 mm. It appears that even if the book cites a source, we won't learn anything from it.  --Lambiam 09:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminds me obliquely of the time I read news of an artifact that was expected to fetch between [two dollar amounts] at auction, and accurately inferred the then current exchange rate of the pound. —Tamfang (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering the near point of a healthy eye is at 25 cm, I'd say choosing to read at 30 cm is a little far-fetched unless the study wasn't limited to people with healthy eyes. 93.136.121.193 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I could focus 4 inches from my eyeball when I was 18. Now it's more like 5. God I'm getting old. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Presbyopia --47.146.63.87 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the "normal reading distance" is the reading distance normal people with normal eyesight normally prefer for normal lettering. My preferred reading distance for letters with a corpus size of one millimetre is not the same as for letters that are one metre tall, and neither is 40 cm. There seems to be a lack of thorough and comprehensive treatments of the topic in the literature, which I think could easily fill a monograph. This is a bit surprising given the huge practical importance. Something that is relevant for the topic is Technical Note 1180 of the National Bureau of Standards, Size of Letters Required for Visibility as a Function of Viewing Distance and Observer Visual Acuity by Gerald L. Howett (1983). But this does not deal with the issue of accommodation. A comprehensive treatment should deal with the combined effects of (not always perfect) accommodation and (always limited) visual acuity.  --Lambiam 09:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)