[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/Paper exper.txt

[Janne V. Kujala]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Changes by:     Janne V. Kujala <address@hidden>        03/02/25 12:15:58

Modified files:
        Paper          : exper.txt 

Log message:
        notes

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt.diff?tr1=1.1&tr2=1.2&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt
diff -u manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt:1.1 manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt:1.2
--- manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt:1.1     Tue Feb 25 09:36:02 2003
+++ manuscripts/Paper/exper.txt Tue Feb 25 12:15:58 2003
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
      - white
      - one color
      - full texture
-     - grayscale texture
+     - grayscale texture (intensity scale "compressed" to a certain range)
 
 General:
 
@@ -15,7 +15,8 @@
 - the order of the test cases is random for each subject
   to componsate memory effects
 
-Recognisability test (usefulness):
+Recognisability test (usefulness)
+---------------------------------
 
 - objective: show that the background textures are useful
 - means: show that fragments of documents can be recognized much
@@ -25,19 +26,19 @@
 
 
 
+
 Suppose that the first page of each of hundreds of documents is torn into 
 pieces and the pieces are put in a single container. 
 It is intuitively clear that the pieces can be identified and put 
 back together much more rapidly if each document has a unique 
 background texture as compared to, e.g., single background colors.
 
-Another question is whether the extra features of textures help 
+Another question is whether the extra features of the textures help 
 recognition as much if the fragments cannot be seen simultaneously 
 for comparing.
 
-
-
-"Applicability"(better word?) test:
+"Applicability"(better word?) test
+----------------------------------
 
 - objective: show that the textures are better than single colors
 
@@ -49,25 +50,17 @@
 XXX: small-scale fragments do lose shape features.
 what to say about this
 
-Readability test (non-disruptiveness):
+Readability test (non-disruptiveness)
+-------------------------------------
 
 - objective: show that readablity does not suffer much
 - means: show that text size has much stronger effect on readability
   than the presence of background texture
 
-     - 4 test cases: small/big font with white/texture bg
-
-     - each subject reads a number of (perhaps 4) texts on different
-       backgrounds and sizes and the time is measured
-
-     - the order of the test cases is random for each subject to 
-       componsate memory effects
-
-         - 3 subjects should do small textures
-           first and the other 3 subjects big textures first 
-           (not sure about this; the reasoning is that the
-           effect of the variation between subjects on white/texture
-           discrimination is lessened at the expense of 
-           small/big discrimination which should be clear enough anyway)
-
-
+    - 2 test cases: with white bg or texture bg 
+    - each subject reads a number of (perhaps 4) texts on the two types of
+      backgrounds and the time is measured
+    - font size is varied between texts and/or subjects
+      (or should the same text be read in different sizes?)
+    - is the memory effect stronger than the variation between different texts?
+