Determining the Appropriate Font Size, and Use of Colour and Contrast for Underwater Displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian mine countermeasures (MCM) divers currently use a combination of different displays to provide them with information about their safety, equipment, and status. MCM divers require a single, integrated display to simplify information gathering, and to provide information from the dive supervisor. Ergonomic design guidelines were reviewed and modified for information display in the underwater environment. A two-phase experiment was conducted to determine the optimal font size and the optimal colour, contrast, and background combination(s) for underwater displays. Eighteen subjects viewed a series of displays in four environments that simulated a combination of light and dark, clear and turbid conditions. Each subject viewed over 210 display screens to compare different font sizes and colour and contrast combinations. Each screen was scored for accuracy and readability. Results showed that when designing an underwater display, character height should be approximately 6 mm (26 point font size) when using Arial font. The display should have a black (or dark) background with light foreground letters. Light orange or light green were found to be the optimum colours for use in the display. A set of ergonomic guidelines for the design of underwater displays were developed based on the results of this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".