illililiiliilll REFERENCE n'ST

AlllQS 17HDia PUBUCATIONS

NBS TECHNICAL NOTE 1 1 80

«^ w ^ ^-V

\

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Bureau of Standards

Size of Letters Required

for Visibility as a

Function of Viewing

Distance and Observer

Visual Acuity

QC

100

(35753
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act ot Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities^ — Radiation Research — Chemical Physics —

Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science

THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering^ — Manufacturing

Engineering — Building Technology — Fire Research — Chemical Engineering^

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. 'Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
Size of Letters Required for

Visibility as a Function of Viewing

Distance and Observer Visual Acuity

Gerald L. Howett

Building Physics Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Sponsored by the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

Washington, DC 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued July 1983
National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 1180

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 1180, 72 pages (July 1983)

CODEN: NBTNAE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1983

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

Price $4.50

(Add 25 percent for other than U.S. mailing)
ABSTRACT

A formula is derived giving the letter stroke-width needed for legibility

of words on a sign at any given distance by an observer with any given visual

acuity. The stroke width, In turn, determines the letter size, depending upon

the characteristics of the type face used. The derivation Is strictly mathematical and Is based on the assumption that beyond a distance of a few meters,

a person's visual acuity Is specifiable by a fixed visual angle, Independent

of the distance. The Information Implicit In the formula Is also presented

graphically. In four plots that apply to four different combinations of length

units for measuring stroke width and viewing distance. Also presented are

formulas and graphs for correcting the critical stroke width for nonstandard

contrast or background luminance. These correction formulas are based on a

body of data on visual acuity as a function of contrast and background luminance, and a formula fitting the mid-ranges of the data, both published recently

by other researchers.

Keywords: Acuity, visual; angle, visual; contrast; distance, viewing; letters;

luminance; resolution, eye; signs; Snellen chart; stroke width;

visual acuity; visual angle.

Ill
FOREWORD

This report is one of a series documenting the results of NBS research in

support of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) , in fulfillment of OSHA Interagency Agreement (lAG) contract No. J-9-F-7-0146 entitled

"Criteria for Signage in Workplaces." Work on this contract was conducted in

the period December 1977 through May 1983.

The author acknowledges with special thanks the interest, cooperation,

and patient encouragement of the sponsor's Technical Project Officer,

Mr. Tom Seymour, OSHA Office of Standards Development.

iv
PREFACE

The purpose of this report is to provide practical guidance for all those

who need to know how large the lettering on signs ought to be. The basic

message underlying the entire analysis is that the size of the lettering

required is not an absolute for all signs, but depends, for each particular

sign, on the Jiaximum distance from which the sign needs to be read, and on the

keenness of eyesight (visual acuity) of the people who need to read the sign.

The letter size required will also depend on the contrast with which the sign

is printed, and the light level with which it is illuminated.

Nontechnical readers who are concerned only with using the formulas, and

not with knowing how they are derived, may prefer to confine their attention

to section 6, which is a list of step-by-step rules for finding the answer

needed. Readers who are interested in checking the validity of the formulas,

and who are comfortable with ordinary algebra and a bit of trigonometry, may

find the full report of interest.
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SYMBOLS

Roman Letters

C = contrast (as fraction or decimal)

C = 100 C: contrast in percent

d = viewing distance

g = height-to-strokewidth ratio of a letter

h = height of a letter

k = multiplicative constant in Kaneko ' s formula, Eq. (22)

L]3 = luminance of background

L^ = luminance of "target" (lettering)

p = power to which L^, is raised in Kaneko 's formula, Eq. (22)

pj. = Trr/216,000: the proportionality constant in the relationship wg = p^. Sd,

depending on the choice of units for d and wg (Appendix A)

Pl = 1.45 X 10"^ [Eq. (15)]: the value of the constant in Eq. (13)

q = power to which C is raised in Kaneko ' s formula, Eq. (22)

r = U^/U^^: ratio of unit used for viewing distance to unit used for stroke

width (Appendix A)

R = L^/L|-: luminance ratio, background to target

S = denominator of Snellen index, 20/S

Sg = Snellen denominator corresponding to a standard visual acuity, Vg

U(i = unit of length in which viewing distance is measured (Appendix A)

U^ = unit of length in which stroke width is measured (Appendix A)

V = visual acuity (reciprocal of threshold visual angle in minutes of arc)

Vg = visual acuity of a group or individual measured under standard conditions

of contrast (=90%) and luminance (=85 cd/m^)

VI
w = linear size (length or width) of an object

wg = stroke width, in length units, needed by someone with 20/S vision in order

to recognize letters

Greek Letters

9 = visual angle subtended by an object at the eye

65 = stroke width, in angular terms, needed by someone with 20/ S vision

in order to recognize letters

TT = 3.14159...: the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter

VI

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1

.

INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Visibility of Symbols 2

2

.

VISUAL ANGLE 6

2 .

1

Significance of the Visual Angle 6

2 .2 Calculating Visual Angle 6

3

.

THE SNELLEN INDEX OF VISUAL ACUITY 10

3 . 1 Meaning of the Snellen Notation 12

3.1.1 Metric Snellen Index 14

4

.

MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF VISUAL ACUITY 17

4 .

1

Plotting the Graph 18

4.2 Significance of the Graphs 23

5

.

ALLOWING FOR LOW CONTRAST AND LUMINANCE 25

5 .

1

Introduction 25

5.2 Contrast 26

5.2.1 Color Contrast 26

5.2.2 Luminance Contrast 28

5 .3 Luminance 39

5 .4 Contrast and Luminance Combined 40

5.5 Application of the Contrast and Luminance Adjustments 42

6

.

SUMMARY OF STEPS TO DETERMINE LETTER SIZE 46

7

.

REFERENCES 50

APPENDIX A: TREATMENT OF CASE OF STROKE WIDTH AND VIEWING DISTANCE

MEASURED IN DIFFERENT UNITS 52

Vlll
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Cumulative Distribution of Visual Acuity Levels in the

Adult Population 3

Table 2. Equivalent Metric and Customary Snellen Notations 16

Table 3 . Ratios of Distance Units to Stroke Width Units 54

Table 4. Exact Values of the Constant pj- = ur/ 2 16, 000, From

Eq. (51) 55

Table 5. Three-Figure Numerical Values of the Constant p^ of

Eq. (50) 56

XX
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Determination of visual angle 7

Figure 2. Log-log plot of minimum stroke width (meters) required for

letter visibility as a function of viewing distance

(meters), with observer visual acuity as a parameter 22

Figure 3. The good fit of Kaneko's (1982) formula [Eq. (22)] to the

data of Nakane and Ito (1978) 31

Figure 4. Log-log plot of visual acuity ratio as a function of

percent-contrast ratio [Eq. (27)] 38

Figure 5. Log-log plot of visual acuity ratio as a function of

background-luminance ratio [Eq. (30)] 41

Figure 6. Log-log plot of minimum stroke width (millimeters)

required for letter visibility as a function of viewing

distance (meters), with observer visual acuity as a parameter 59

Figure 7. Log-log plot of minimum stroke width (inches) required

for letter visibility as a function of viewing distance

(feet), with observer visual acuity as a parameter 60

Figure 8. Log-log plot of minimum stroke width (inches) required

for letter visibility as a function of viewing distance

(yards), with observer visual acuity as a parameter 61

X
SIZE OF LETTERS REQUIRED FOR VISIBILITY AS A FUNCTION OF

VIEWING DISTANCE AND OBSERVER VISUAL ACUITY

Gerald L. Howett

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

1 . INTRODUCTION

In designing a sign containing a word message, a primary objective is to

have the sign legible to the people who will see it, at the maximum distance

at which it would be useful or necessary for the message information to be conveyed to the viewers. Prescribing a specific size for the lettering on a type

of sign to be used in a variety of locations may lead to legibility in typical

cases, but it is more universally effective to let the prescribed letter size

vary with the maximum distance from which the sign might be viewed in the

specific location in which it is installed. Thus, exit-sign letters 6 inches

high, with a stroke width of 1 inch, may be large enough to attract attention

and to be legible in a typical office building hallway, but for people working

near the center of a huge warehouse floor, such letters may be too small to be

read if the signs are located on the outer walls, more than 300 feet from the

viewers.

At a distance of about 286 feet, letters with a stroke width of 1 inch

will be about as legible as are the letters on the 20/20 ("normal") line on an

eye chart at the standard testing distance of 20 feet. Thus, if allowance is

to be made for people with worse than 20/20 vision — and there are many of

them — a stroke width greater than 1 inch would be necessary for legibility at

The following exact equations relate customary units used in this report to SI

(metric) units: 1 inch = 25.4 millimeters, 1 foot = 12 inches = 0.3048 meter,

and 1 yard = 3 feet = 36 inches = 0.9144 meter.
the same 286-foot viewing distance. It is worth noting, by reference to Table 1,

that more than a quarter of adults, wearing whatever glasses they usually wear,

have worse than 20/20 vision (Roberts, 1964). The purpose of this paper is to

permit a sign designer or specifier to select letters large enough to provide

legibility for any given viewing distance, for viewers characterized by any

given level of visual acuity. In section 5, information will also be provided

on how to allow for variations in the two additional factors of contrast between

the letters and the sign background, and the luminance of the background.

1.1 VISIBILITY OF SYMBOLS

The significance of the stroke width of a letter — at least for block

capitals — is that the thickness of the strokes making up a letter represents

the finest detail within the letter that it is necessary to see in order to

recognize the letter. When the strokes making up a set of capital letters are

all of uniform thickness, it is easy to specify the "critical detail": it

is simply the width of the strokes. When the typeface used does not have all

its strokes of constant width, but contains tapering strokes of varying width,

it may no longer be obvious by simple inspection what the critical detail is

for each letter.

When sjnnbols, as opposed to words, are considered, the situation is

considerably more complex. An occasional symbol is composed of "stick figures"

and resembles letters in the sense that all the component strokes are of the

same, uniform width. In cases where such a sjnnbol is easily interpreted when

visible, the distance of bare visibility would be about the same as for a

letter of the same stroke width. On the other hand, if it takes most people

a little thought to figure out what the symbol means even when they can see
Table 1 . Cumulative Distribution of Visual Acuity Levels

in the Adult Population

Proportion of Population 18-79 Years Old Reaching or Exceeding

the Test Levels for Binocular Distance Vision: United States,

1960-62 (From Roberts, 1964)

Proportion for

Distance Vision

UnTest Level corrected "Corrected"^

20/10 or better ~ 1.1 1.5

20/15 or better — 30.3 40.0

20/20 or better ~ 53.9 72.9

20/30 or better ~ 69.3 90.6

20/40 or better ~ 75.8 95.1

20/50 or better ~ 80.4 96.8

20/70 or better ~ 83.9 97.7

20/100 or better ~ 93.5 99.2

20/200 or better ~ 97.6 99. 6^

^ Uncorrected testing was without glasses. "Corrected" testing

was with glasses, if worn to the examination; otherwise,

without them.

" Not regarded by Roberts as a reliable figure. She believes

it is safe to say that no more than 1 percent of adults have

"corrected" acuities worse than 20/200. Not all of that group

are legally blind; some are correctable to a better acuity but

simply didn't have glasses, or did not wear them to the test.
it fairly well, it might be expected that the average recognition distance

for such a symbol would be somewhat less than the stroke width would suggest

(i.e., they would seem to be harder to see).

Most symbols do not contain strokes of only a single width, but contain

a range of details from fine to coarse. In this common situation, it is

impossible, in most cases, to predict by inspection what the critical detail

of the symbol is. Here, the element of meaning becomes deeply confounded with

the visibility aspect. It may be obvious what the finest details of the symbol

are, but is it necessary to see those particular details in order to recognize

the symbol? Sometimes the finest details are not essential, and the critical

detail — which must be made out for recognition to take place — may be of

somewhat larger size. Attempts to guess the size of the critical detail of a

complex symbol are not likely to be reliably correct.

The only recourse is to test each such symbol with a representative group

of observers, who might be instructed to approach the symbol slowly from well

beyond the visibility range and state the meaning of the symbol as soon as

recognition occurs. For each symbol, there is then an associated mean recognition distance. It is possible to calculate, by means to be described in this

report, what stroke width would be needed in order for recognition of a letter

to occur at this same distance, for observers of any specified visual acuity.

Thus, an "equivalent stroke width" — the effective size of the unknown critical detail — can be determined from the symbol recognition-distance data. The

visual acuity level used in the equivalence would be that characterizing the

observers used in the symbol study.

Once this equivalent stroke width is known for a given symbol, it is

reasonable to assume — pending contrary evidence — that the methods of this

4
report will allow for a prediction of how big the symbol needs to be made in

order to be just recognizable at any specified distance by people with any

specified visual acuity. In summary, each symbol should be "calibrated" In a

recognition-distance study (which automatically takes account of both the

meaning factor and the simple visibility factor), and thereafter, the symbol

should be treatable as If It were a letter (specifically, a letter having a

stroke width equal to the equivalent stroke width determined for the symbol).

The above methodology Is subject to experimental verification and Is

presented as a possible approach for linking the visibility of symbols to the

visibility of words. The remainder of this report will be confined to a

discussion of letters and words.
2. VISUAL ANGLE

2.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VISUAL ANGLE

The eye, like a camera, forms an image of external objects on its internal

back surface. Instead of the flat film that permanently captures the image

in a camera, the eye has a network — called the retina — of light-sensitive

nerve cells that generate a continuously changing electrical pattern. This

pattern is interpreted as a visual image by the higher centers of the brain.

The retina, following the contours of the eyeball, is spread over a spherical

surface. Our ability to make out fine details in an object depends upon the

size and sharpness of the image of the object on the retina.

The matter of sharpness relates to the visual acuity of the eye in

question. This subject will be covered in section 3 of this report. As for

the size of the retinal image, it is a function of the angle subtended by

the object at the eye; i.e., the angle formed by the light rays joining the

ends of the object to the point inside the eye known as the nodal point or

optical center (Duke-Elder and Abrams, 1970, p. 121; Brown, 1965, p. 56).

This "visual angle," in turn, is dependent both on the physical size of the

object (positive dependence) and the distance of the object from the eye

(negative dependence).

2.2 CALCULATING VISUAL ANGLE

The angle subtended by an object at the eye of an observer is easy to

calculate by elementary trigonometry. It can be seen in Fig. 1, in the right

triangle ACO, for example, that

tan i = W2 . 2 d
Figure 1. Determination of visual angle. The nodal point (optical center)

of the observer's eye is at 0. The object, AB, of length or width w, has its center at C. The viewing distance OC is d^, and

6 is the visual angle subtended by AB at 0.
Accordingly,

= 2 tan

^ . (1) 2d

'

Fortunately, for small angles, the trigonometric expression in Eq. (1) can

be closely approximated by a simple algebraic quantity. For small angles, the

sine of the angle, the tangent of the angle, and the angle itself (expressed in

radians), are all nearly equal. Therefore, when the arctangent of an argument

corresponds to a small angle, it is nearly equal to the argument (the tangent),

and we can simply eliminate the tan"-*- symbol in Eq. (1), leaving

In words,

"^ . (2)

d

visual angle (radians) = size of object ^ (3)

viewing distance

where the object's size and viewing distance are measured in the same units of

length. The approximate formula given by Eq. (2) or Eq. (3) is correct to

four decimal places, relative to the exact value given by Eq. (1), for angles

up to 0.0843 rad (4°50'), and is correct to three places for angles up to 0.182

rad (10°26'). Since we are concerned in this report with the limit of

resolution of the eye, the angles of interest are of the order of a few minutes

of arc. For such tiny angles, Eq. (3) is more than sufficiently accurate for

any practical purpose.

In order to express Eq. (3) directly in minutes of arc, we need to know

the number of minutes in a radian. A complete circle is 2it radians, and also

360°, so that

2tt rad = 360°,

or

1 rad = 360^ . (4)

2tt

8
Since there are 60 minutes in a degree, it follows from Eq. (4) that

1 rad = 360 x 60' = 10,800' . 3433. (5)

Using the 4-digit approximation in Eq. (5), we can rewrite Eq. (3) as

visual angle (minutes) = 3438 x size of object . (5)

viewing distance

The true value of the constant in Eq. (5) is a decimal that goes on

forever (because rr is an irrational number). However, the rounded quantity

3438 will serve quite well for most practical purposes. Most of the basic

quantities in this paper will be given to three or four significant figures, a

range consonant with the typical field-measurement accuracies of the empirical

quantities entering into the formulas. To allow for any possible need for still

greater accuracy, exact expressions for the key quantities are also given, as

in Eq. (5), just before the final number. Later, in section 5, five significant

figures will be used to agree with the practice of the quoted authors.
3. THE SNELLEN INDEX OF VISUAL ACUITY

The expression "visual acuity" refers in casual usage to sharpness of

vision, or the limiting resolution of the eye. It is traditionally assumed

that the finest detail that can just be made out by an eye with normal visual

acuity, viewing black lines on a white background, with moderate levels of

illumination, subtends a visual angle of 1 minute of arc. This assumption is

apparently rather conservative in terms of population statistics; that is, the

average observer can actually make out details subtending somewhat less than 1

minute (Le Grand, 1967; Roberts, 1964). Nevertheless, the most commonly used

kind of eye chart, the Snellen-type chart, takes normal acuity as 1 minute, as

embodied in the line of the chart with the Snellen notation 20/20. It is not

the entire letter of this size that subtends a visual angle of 1 minute, but

rather the finest detail of the letter — the stroke width — that subtends 1

minute at the standard viewing distance of 20 feet. Snellen letters are five

times the stroke width in height, so the letters corresponding to 20/20 vision

have a height subtending 5 minutes of arc.

A capital letter E has three horizontal strokes and two spaces between the

strokes. In the Snellen E, the strokes and spaces are all equal in thickness,

so that the total height of the letter is five times the stroke width. In

addition, the width of the letter is taken to be equal to the height. Other

Snellen letters, which are all capitals, are designed to have the same stroke

width, overall height, and overall width as the E.

It is intuitively clear that if the horizontal spaces in an E were

substantially thinner than the strokes, then the space would be the limiting

factor in visually resolving the letter. That is, if the letter were viewed

at such a distance that the strokes were just barely visible, the spaces would

10
be invisible, and the letter would appear, ideally, as a solid black rectangle.

On the other hand, if the spaces were substantially wider than the strokes, the

strokes would provide the limiting detail. Consequently, at a distance at

which the spaces could just be seen, the strokes could not be seen, and the

letter would appear, ideally, as a white rectangle (i.e., it would disappear

entirely against the white background of the chart).

In reality, vision does not work in such an all-or-nothing fashion.

Acuity is not perfectly constant either over time or over space. What is

actually seen in looking at a letter not far beyond the resolution limit is a

grayish blob that has dark and light features that are elusive and changing,

and do not form a pattern sufficiently familiar to recognize. Nevertheless,

the principles of the preceding paragraph are correct, and, for a given letter

height, the highest acuity scores are in fact obtained when the strokes and

spaces of a capital E are of equal width, as on the Snellen chart. Snellen

letters, with a 5:1 height-to-strokewidth ratio, appear "blocky" and unesthetic

to most people, apparently including graphic designers. Letter heights are

never ordinarily any less than 5 times the stroke width, and are usually a

higher multiple. A ratio within the range of 6 to 10 is most commonly recommended in human engineering handbooks as best for good legibility (Morgan et

al., 1963, p. 102; McCormick, 1970, p. 166; Huchingson, 1981, p. 128; Woodson,

1981, p. 491).

When the stroke width, rather than the overall height, of a capital E is

kept fixed, then extra-high spaces between the strokes will not harm visibility

and may even increase it, so height-to-strokewidth ratios in the neighborhood

of 10 may then be optimum for visibility; but the price paid is bigger letter

size. Because of the considerable variation in the ratio of height to stroke

11
width in the type faces actually used in current systems of signs, it would be

inaccurate to specify letter heights as being visible at various distances by

normal or other observers. Instead, this report will state its recommendations

in terms of stroke width. Letter heights for whatever type face is desired can

then be obtained by multiplying the specified stroke width by the height-tostrokewidth ratio characterizing that face. Thus, for 20/20 vision at 20 feet,

a stroke width of 1 minute of arc is required. If Snellen letters are used,

the letter height will be 5 minutes of arc; if more typical letter styles

are used, the height may be 6 to 10 minutes, or more.

3.1 MEANING OF THE SNELLEN NOTATION

People with 20/40 vision can just see at 20 feet the same letters that

the average ("normal") person can just see at 40 feet. They need to see stroke

widths subtending 2 minutes of arc, in order to recognize letters. They can

accomplish this by looking at the 20/20 line of the chart from a distance of

only 10 feet; or, if they stay at a distance of 20 feet, they need letters

that are twice as large as the 20/20 letters that the person with normal acuity

can see from 20 feet. The 20/40 letters are in fact exactly twice as large as

the 20/20 letters. On the other hand, people with visual acuity twice as good

as normal can read the 20/10 line on the chart, which has a stroke width subtending half a minute at 20 feet. They see at 20 feet what the normal observer

can only make out at 10 feet. The 20/10 letters are half the size of the

20/20 letters.

In general, we can refer symbolically to a Snellen index of 20/_S_. Here,

S^ is the distance at which the normal observer must stand to just make out the

same letters that people with 20/S^ vision can just make out at the standard

12
viewing distance of 20 feet. (That is , ^ is the distance at which the width of

the strokes comprising these letters subtends a visual angle of 1 minute of

arc.) ^ values greater than 20 represent subnormal vision; S^ values less than

20 represent superior vision. Accordingly, the Snellen denominator S^ is an

inverse measure of visual acuity.

Another inverse measure of visual acuity is the size of the threshold

object — the object that can just barely be seen — measured in angular

terms. If the threshold object, such as the stroke width of a Snellen-type

letter, is small, then visual acuity is high; if the threshold stroke width

is large, then visual acuity is low. Accordingly, the established direct

measure of visual acuity is the reciprocal of the threshold visual angle,

when the angle is measured in minutes of arc. This quantity is, in fact,

the technical definition of the term "visual acuity." Thus, visual acuity

is measured in units of reciprocal minutes of arc (min~^). Further reference

in this report to visual acuity, or simply acuity, in a quantitative context,

will refer specifically to this measure.

Since the Snellen denominator S_ is also an inverse measure of visual

acuity, we know that: ^ is proportional to the threshold stroke width (specifically, S^ is equal to 20 times the latter quantity, measured in minutes of

arc); and the quantity 20/ S^ would be a direct acuity measure. This quantity

is simply the Snellen notation, interpreted as an actual fraction. Not only

is the Snellen fraction directly proportional to visual acuity, it is actually

numerically equal to it. This follows from the observation above that S_ is

equal to 20 times the stroke width measured in minutes of arc; the factors of

20 in the fraction cancel out. For a person with normal vision, the Snellen

fraction is 20/20 = 1, and the visual acuity is 1 min"-'- , since the stroke

13
width of the letters on the 10/10 line of the chart subtends an angle of 1

minute of arc at the standard viewing distance of 20 feet. A person whose

acuity threshold is reached with the 20/40 line of the chart has a Snellen

fraction equal to 0.5 and a visual acuity of 0.5 min"-'- , because the stroke

width of those letters subtends 2 minutes of arc at 20 feet. Finally, a person

who can make out the 20/10 letters on the chart has a Snellen fraction equal to

2.0 and a visual acuity of 2.0 min"^ , since the stroke width of those letters

subtends 1/2 minute at 20 feet.

In general, a person with 20/S^ vision needs a stroke width of S^/20 minutes

of arc to just see letters and that person has a visual acuity of 20/S^ min"^

3.1.1 Metric Snellen Index

The numerator of the customary Snellen fraction is always 20, because the

standard viewing distance for administering the Snellen eye test is 20 feet.

Since feet are not a metric unit, a version of the Snellen index suitable for

use with the metric International System of units (SI) has been developed, and

is found in some of the clinical visual literature (i.e., optometric and ophthalmological journals). Conveniently, 20 feet is almost exactly 6 meters. (The

actual figure is exactly 6.096 m.) Hence, the base distance in meters for

administration of the metric Snellen test, and the fixed numerator of the metric

Snellen fraction, have been taken as 6. (Six meters equals approximately

19.685 feet.) The metric Snellen notations equivalent to the seven customary

Snellen indices used in the graphs of this report are shown in Table 2. As we

have seen earlier, the Snellen notation, when interpreted as an actual numerical

fraction, is equal to the reciprocal of the critical detail (stroke width) in

14
minutes of arc. The same is true for the metric notation, since the numerator

and denominator have the same ratio as in the equivalent customary notation.

Recently, the NAS-NRC Vision Committee (National Academy of Sciences,

1980) issued recommended standards for the design of visual acuity tests, the

procedures to be used in administering them, and the method for specifying the

results of the tests. They concluded, for both computational and visual reasons discussed in their paper, that the optimum metric distance for viewing

acuity test displays is four, rather than six meters, even though this distance

(a little over 13 feet) is well short of the traditional 20 feet. As a result,

it can be anticipated that Snellen notations with a numerator of 4 will soon

be showing up in clinical literature. For future reference, these notations

are also included in Table 2.

15
COo

•H

4->

C[) 4-) O

2:c

0)d

CO>^Uo

4J

CO

=Jd

CO

4J

0) IS

CO•u

QJ rH

CO>

•H3

cr W

CVJ

to H

cO CO

bO

O

C

<l

W

bO 4J •H (1)

col

0) (1) iH 4J bO d C Pi <d •HS

r-tCO •K =3 /^

CO -^

•H 4-t > TJ

•H >H 13

COO 0) •H ^ 4J O

•H ^-i M -t-l u CO

^~^l

XI

CO

cu

•> -u >% d

•p

d

•H -H d s

<:

COSo

4J

COd

in

CM in in oin oo

inooo

CM

CM

COofsl

CM oo oin CO

C30 CM1—

eg vO 1—

^oCMOCM

^Ooo

I—

OOCM

Oc-J OCMoCO

vOoooCM oCsl oo

ino o O o

\£) O

CMOCM

OCM

^Ooo

<roCM

COo

bOd

•H

(U ^ •H 15 «^ x: CTi 4-) 0) /^•s •u o CO •rH CJ • 5J > •H

x: >X) S-I bO Sw' (U CO 4-) d x: •H CU o 4-) 4-1 ^ a

42

d 4-> +J <u 4-)

u

rH CO x: o d CO X bO

cu > 4-4

d >^ > •H o ^

<u

d o x: CO cr CO 4-) a •^ <u o

-xs

•>

d 4-1 <u u u CU CO

4-1 o o > d d CO u <u • o

<u

x o 4-) N,^

CD 0) CO «s CU

QJ M-l CO <u

d

i-> <u

d "4-1 o ax: (U o •H

cu 4-) e •H o 4-1 M CO 4-t CM o d CO CO CO

CO CO 4-1

B S-I • <u 4= 0) o 5 <+^ >.

•1-1 4-1 x:

d i-i 4-) 4J 4J y-i d •H

•H CO o CU i-i d CO >. •H 4J rH d o CU X) S-i d rH CO

CO r-^ 4-1 (U CU

d

14-1 (U

u

d cr -H 4-1 14-1 a CU CO

CO •H

O <4-l o d X> S-i IH CU •H

CO CU CU •H ^ 4-1 •H CO CO 4-) TJ 4-) 0) > i-l (U a

CO

d S >~. o x:

CU •H o 1 r-l 4-1 4J x: o <t CO •H

4-1 CO CO .H S-I

S-i y-i (U o CO CO o CU o XI i-l d

4-) 4-) 4-) bO cr rH

(U 0) (U CO

4-)

a S-i 4-1 CO

d

c; CO

O •H >% 4J

<u ^ rH

O

a, CO <u /'•V rH CO CO iw S-I d 4-1 CO

0) o o u 0)

O

d

$-1 4J 4-) CU •H CO

CU CO tW S-I x: o d CO (U CO

4-)

d •H •H COa CO •H CO eg d

IS 4-) o 0) —I

d •d

CO

d

a • 0)

4.) •H 0) CO CO CO 4-) o -d •d CO i-H •H <u

CO S-I x; bO CJ CU >^ >. ex

0)

d •H x: r-l 4-J S-I •H )-l H (U •H <u

0) ^ 4-) 4-)

d 4-)

$-1 CU (U CO o d

CO •H> a

1-1

B

•H

CO •H

CO CU CO

X rH CO

cu o x:

dO CO •H o •H H cr !-i d d >-( 0) CX, CO S-< <u 4-1 a •H <u

r-l <u • >. CO > 4-> CO s 4-) -H N.-' 4-1 > (U 4J 4-1 CO •H -d CU O Q) CO rH d S-( y-i CO CJ ^

cr CO

Xd 4-) CU

<u -d

O (U CO JH

d CM 4-) CU 4-) <u CO 0) CO 4J x: 4J M-l M •H o MH H CO O CO TS IZ •H

16
4. MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF VISUAL ACUITY

We recall at this point, from the considerations of section 3, that a

normal observer needs stroke widths of 1 minute to just recognize letters, and

that the person with 20/S^ vision needs stroke widths of ^/20 minutes. If we

denote by O^g the stroke width needed by someone with 20/^ vision, expressed in

angular terms, then we can write

©20 ~ 1 min,

and, in general,

Og = S/20 min. (7)

We can obtain an expression for G^g in radians by inverting Eq. (5):

1 min = !__ rad « 2.91 x 10"'^ rad; (8)

10,800

and then converting Eq. (A) with the use of Eq. (8). The exact result is

G^ =/S V ^ V^d = _JL§__- rad, (9)

S \20/VlO,800/ 216,000

or, numerically,

0g = 1.45 X 10"^ X S rad. (10)

If we now denote by wg the stroke width needed by someone with 20/S^

vision, expressed in length units, we can make use of Eq. (2) to write

Og = wg/d, (11)

where d. is the viewing distance. We can then substitute for Q^g in Eqs. (9) and

(10) the expression given by Eq. (11), the results being

w_/d = _!LS

S 216,000

and

Wg/d = 1.45 X 10"^ X S,

respectively. The results are the following expressions for wg:

w_ = ^Sd (12)

S 216,000

or Wg = 1.45 X 10"^ X s X d, (13)

where wg and d_ are expressed in the same units of length .

17
Ordinarily, It Is convenient to use smaller units for specifying the

stroke width than are used for the viewing distance. If wg and d_ in Eq. (13)

are measured in meters, it is easy enough to then convert wg to units of centimeters or millimeters. Similarly, if the two quantities are measured in feet,

wg can be converted to inches. It is possible to modify Eq. (13) to take

explicit account of any possible units of measurement for wg and d^, and such a

treatment has been included in Appendix A.

4.1 PLOTTING THE GRAPH

The relationship (13) is of a very simple form: it says that wg is simply

proportional to d_, the constant of proportionality being a fixed constant times

S^. It is easy to see what the result would be if we were to plot wg as a function of d_, with S^ as a parameter. The graph would consist of a family of lines

through the origin of the wg against d^ plot, each line corresponding to a particular value of S^. The problem with actually drawing such a graph is that we

want to cover a range of values for d (and consequently for wg) of several

orders of magnitude; that is, we would be interested in viewing distances of 2

meters, 20 meters, and 200 meters — occasionally even 2000 meters. Any graph

that includes 2000 m would have 2 m located so close to m that accurate readings would be impossible. Frequently, the solution to such a situation is to

plot the logarithms of the variables against each other, rather than the

variables themselves. Taking the logs of both sides of Eq. (13) gives

log Wg = log p]^ + log S + log d, (14)

where px stands for the numerical constant, i.e.,

p-,^ = 1.45 X 10"^. (15)

18
Inspection of Eq. (14) shows that a plot of log wg against log d always

yields a straight line of unit slope (at 45°), regardless of the observer's

visual acuity (indexed by S^) . Hence, the pencil ("fan") of lines through the

origin obtained by plotting wg against d_ is replaced, in the log-log plot, by

a family of parallel lines of unit slope. The spacing between these lines,

each line corresponding to a particular value of S^, is fixed, once a particular

selection of ^ values is chosen.

We proceed, then, to choose the set of S_ values to be displayed. The

considerations governing this choice are: (1) the highest and lowest S^ values

(lowest and highest acuity, respectively) should embrace virtually the entire

population of interest; (2) the values of S_ used should correspond to values

appearing on actual Snellen charts; and (3) the values chosen should lead to

lines approximately equally spaced on the log-log plot, i.e., the ratios of

successive S^ values should be approximately constant. In accordance with these

criteria, seven values of S^ have been selected: 10, 20, 40, 60, 100, 200, and

400. Few people have vision better than 20/10, and there is virtually never a

need to design displays for people with such super-acute vision. At the other

extreme, all degrees of visual defect exist, but it seems impractical even to

consider allowing visually for Snellen acuities worse than 20/400. Auditory

or tactual information transfer is more suitable for people with such poor

acuity. (Legal blindness is usually defined as corrected vision not exceeding

20/200 in the better eye, and, as indicated in Table 1, the percentage of adults

who are legally blind is less than 1 percent by an unknown amount.) It must be

recalled that a person with 20/^ vision requires letters ^/20 times as large as

a person with normal 20/20 vision. Hence, those who are just barely legally

blind (20/200) need letters 10 times as large as those required by people of

19
normal acuity, at the same viewing distance. In a situation where 6- inch

letters are appropriate for normal viewers, the person with 20/200 vision needs

5-foot letters, and 20/400 vision requires 10-foot letters.

In reaching a decision as to what limiting acuity should be chosen as

determining the size of sign lettering, economics (the cost of the signs) and

esthetics tend to hold down the size of the signs, while the importance of the

sign's message (e.g., calling attention to a severe safety hazard) will tend

to encourage use of a large enough sign so that a high proportion of the population will be alerted by the visual message. Decisions as to the optimum

balance will have to be made either on a case-by-case basis, or by general

agreement reached through a government board or a standardizing committee.

Because of recent federal regulations (ATBCB, 1981), public buildings will be

equipped with auditory and tactual signals for the benefit of those without

sight. The decision on a cutoff acuity is therefore not a matter of abandoning

all people with worse vision than the cutoff level, but rather a question of

where to switch from reliance on reading signs to reliance on signals through

the other senses (Collins, Banner, and Tibbott, 1981). A behavioral survey of

substantial numbers of people with very low visual acuity might reveal a fairly

sharply defined acuity level dividing those who rely principally on their visual

sense for information about the outside world, from those more dependent on

other senses. People with worse than that level of acuity would tend to consider themselves functionally blind and to operate in public more on the basis

of sound and touch (including dependence on guide dogs), rather than on the

basis of their very limited vision. If such a level exists, it would be

interesting to see how close it is to the 20/200 visual acuity that has been

chosen as the cutoff for legal blindness.

20
No recommendation on the cutoff acuity is made in this report. By

presenting a graph that allows for any likely choice of the cutoff level, the

report presents directly the information needed by sign designers who have made

the choice for themselves. In any event, Eq. (13) would serve to provide the

required information on letter height to a designer who chooses any limiting

acuity whatever, even a level outside the range of 20/10 to 20/400 included in

the graph.

Figure 2 shows the final graph, based on measuring both wg and d^ in meters.

Because the functions drawn in the figure are straight lines, they can be

plotted by locating only two points on each line and simply connecting the

points. For the line corresponding to an acuity of 20/ S_, Eq. (13) tells us that

—1 3 —

S

the values of Wq for d_ = 10 and d^ = 10 m are, respectively, 1.45 x 10 x

S X 10-1 and 1.45 x lO'^ x S x IQ-^ m, or 1.45 x lO'^ x S and 1.45 x 10~2 x S m.

Thus, for example, to plot the 20/400 line (S_ = 400) on the graph, the wg

values indicated above become specifically 1.45 x lO"" x 400 and 1.45 x 10"^ x

400 m, or 5.80 x lO""^ and 5.80 ra, respectively. In short, we plot points at

(0.1 m, 5.80 X 10"'^ m) and (1000 m, 5.80 m) and draw the line connecting them.

The other lines in the figure are constructed similarly.

In Appendix A, three additional figures are presented, analogous to Fig. 2.

Those graphs are for situations in which wg and d^ are measured in different

units. The figures in Appendix A were selected as representing combinations of

units that are likely to be of practical interest.

As was pointed out earlier, Eq. (13), on which Fig. 2 is based, is valid

provided the same units are used for measuring distance and stroke width.

Accordingly, the very same equation would apply if both variables were measured

in, for example, inches, instead of meters. However, the graph corresponding

21
- s ^

UJO s s

t^ CO u

•H 05 ^ CO •H^ >^

•H AJ

CO 1-1 •H 3 > O

CO

S-i <U r-l JJ <0

J-> 3

d) CO> UO S-I U-l 0)>

T3 S-i 0) (U

(-( CO •H J3 3 O

OJ ^

i-i 4-> •H

COu •> 0) /-v •U CO <u u 6 0) ^x JJ

0)

J-) -—

•H 0)c

0) CO M -u O CO

CO bO e c 3 -H e 5

•H OJ •H >

<4-lO

O

JJ o O -H

r-< JJ D- Oc

W) 3

"W iH1 CO bOO CO iJ CO

(UC

CO

JJ mo

JJco

a.

COo

CJ

CO

Q)C

•H

s: CO H M • O

S-I JJ

Q) CO JJ d

(U T-l s e

CO

O

M 3

CO <D D. -a

<V

S-i 3

bO

•H

(ui) HiaiM SMMIS

22
to this choice of units would not be identical to Fig. 2. The family of lines

would indeed be the same, but the "inch-vs .-inch" graph would have numbers on

both axes larger by a factor of approximately 39 than the numbers used in

Fig. 2. This means that the powers of 10 labeling corresponding points on the

graphs would be greater by about 1.6 on the "inch-vs .-inch" graph.

4.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GRAPHS

The basis of the straight lines in the graphs — including those in

Appendix A — is the same as the basis of the Snellen system: the assumption

that only visual angle counts, and not absolute distance. If a person has

20/20 vision at a viewing distance of 6 meters, it is assumed that he still has

20/20 vision (that is, a threshold of 1 minute of arc) at 60 or 600 meters.

Some researchers who have tested this assumption directly have found it to be

true (Beebe-Center et al., 1945; Berger, 1941; Dimmick and Rudolph, 1948), but

others have found deviations (Giese, 1946; Chapanis and Scarpa, 1967). Until

the matter is settled definitively, it is simplest to assume that visual acuity

does not vary with distance (beyond some minimum distance). We know that "near'

acuity, operative at reading distance, can be very different from "far" acuity;

that is why many people need bifocals. The lines in the graphs have been

dashed below 2 meters, because the transition from far to near vision begins

somewhere around that distance. When the distance gets down to 0.4 meter (16

inches), one is dealing with full-fledged near vision, and below 0.2 meter (8

inches), where the graph lines have been discontinued, many adults cannot focus

their eyes fully and visual acuity deteriorates. Duke-Elder and Abrams (1970)

give the eye's near point — the distance of shortest focus — as 0.1 meter (4

23
inches). Fortunately, most signs in buildings are meant to be viewed at

distances of 2 meters or more.

The lines in the graphs actually apply at any distance because the

information conveyed by the lines is a matter of definition and not of fact.

(For example, 20/20 vision means an ability to just make out stroke widths subtending 1 minute of arc, and the 20/20 line in each graph indicates what stroke

width subtends 1 minute at each distance.) However, two cautions are important in interpreting and applying the graphs: (1) the vision of a particular

person may be characterized by one of the lines in the graph at long viewing

distances, but by a different line at reading distances; and (2) it is widely

accepted that the average vision of the population is 20/20 when testing is at

the customary viewing distance of 20 feet, but is the population average also

20/20 at long viewing distances, such as 200 feet, or at short distances, such

as 2 feet? No published data bearing on the variation of population acuity

norms with viewing distance have been discovered by the author, but it seems

to be widely assumed (perhaps as a convenience) that 20/20 is normal vision at

all distances down to about a foot and a half. Although the conclusions of

this report may apply fairly well to near as well as to distance vision, it is

safest to regard the report as being concerned with the legibility of signs

viewed from beyond "reading distance."

24
5. ALLOWING FOR LOW CONTRAST AND LUMINANCE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Standard procedure in administering visual acuity tests by means of wall

charts involves printing the chart with high contrast (i.e., very black print

on a very white background) and lighting it to adequate levels that put the

luminance of the white chart background well up into the photopic ("day-vision")

range (the lower limit of which is at about 1 footlambert ) . It is obvious that

strong reduction in the contrast of the letters with the background — e.g.,

using light gray instead of black letters on the same white background — would

interfere with anyone's ability to resolve the letters, and would accordingly

result in a poorer visual acuity score. Similarly, a marked reduction in

luminance would lead to the same result.

The figure of 1 minute of arc as the limiting detail that can be

discriminated by the normal observer (i.e., 20/20 vision) is based on testing

with high-contrast charts lit to relatively high luminance levels (in the

neighborhood of 25 footlamberts) . The designer responsible for the specification of any sign — particularly a sign relating to safety — should make it a

point to use very high contrast between the lettering and the background, and

to have the sign brightly lit. However, if some compelling circumstance

requires sacrificing some degree of contrast or luminance, it would be desirable to be able to estimate quantitatively how much visual acuity would be

reduced; and, accordingly, how much larger the sign lettering should be made in

order to compensate for the worsening of visual resolution under these "reduced"

(visually degraded) conditions. That is the purpose of this section of the

present report.

25
5.2 CONTRAST

5.2.1 Color Contrast

A visual "target" and its background may differ in luminance, chromaticity

(colloquially, "color"), or both. The luminance of an object determines its

lightness (if it is a reflecting surface) or its brightness (if it is a light

emitter). Much is known about the effects of luminance contrast on target

visibility, and some of the implications of this knowledge for the visibility

of lettered messages will be discussed in section 5.2.2.

On the other hand, the effects of chromatic differences on visibility

have been less fully explored, partly because they are intrinsically more

complex. No attempt will be made in this report to provide any method of

allowing for the contribution of chromatic differences to the visibility of

lettering on signs. Some of the problems slowing the development of such a

method are discussed below.

In the analysis of luminance or reflectance differences, the concept of

contrast has proved very useful in many applications, and will be discussed at

length in section 5.2.2. Although there are several different formal definitions of contrast, the one we will work with is essentially a percentage measure of luminance or reflectance difference between the target and background,

relative to the value for the background. No analogous measure is widely

accepted in the area of chromatic differences. The quantity often loosely

labeled "color contrast" or "chromatic contrast" is not a contrast in the preceding sense of a percentage difference, but is actually an absolute measure of

amount of color difference.

Unfortunately, there is not yet even an agreed upon formula for color

difference. Many formulas have been proposed over the years, and a number of

26
them have proved useful in limited industrial applications (Wyszecki and

Stiles, 1967, p. 459 ff.)« The whole matter is still so controversial that the

CIE — the International Commission on Illumination, which makes formal recommendations for practice in the area of light and color — was unable to agree

on any single formula as the best available, and instead recommended two different formulas for use and further study (CIE, 1978).

It is known that even when the target and background are viewed from a

short enough distance to appear large, more visual difference can be contributed by a large lightness difference than by even the largest chromatic

difference. Moreover, as one or both of the target and background become

smaller in angular size (down in the range below half a degree), the contribution of any chromatic difference to the overall perceived difference drops off

more rapidly than the contribution of the lightness difference (Judd, 1973).

As a result, when the target is a sign message not far above the limits of

legibility, the colors of the lettering and background make hardly any contribution to the perceived contrast, and only the luminance or reflectance difference is important in determining visibility. For purposes of reading continuous

text. Tinker (1963, 1965) has pointed out that the colors of ink and paper are

essentially irrelevant, and that maximum speed of reading will result as long

as the luminous reflectance of the paper exceeds that of the ink by a factor of

about 8

.

For purposes of sign specification, the most useful advice that can be

given here is to make the lettering as dark as possible and the background as

light as possible, or vice versa. Most of us have seen a red on green or red

on blue (or the reverse) sign or product label that was virtually unreadable,

despite the fact that these color combinations provide a great deal of chromatic

27
contrast. The problem arises when the lightnesses or reflectances of the two

colors are too close together in value. There is no harm in introducing some

coloration of the letters and/or background, but only to the extent that a

reflectance ratio of 7 or 8 can be maintained.

The ANSI (1979) standard governing the use of colors on signs for safety

purposes takes cognizance of these rules. In order to maximize lightness contrast with white lettering or symbols, which are required to have a luminous

reflectance of at least 73.40 percent, the reflectances of contrasting colors

are allowed to be rather low. For example, the minimum reflectance allowed for

red or green is 9.00 percent, and for blue 6.56 percent. On the other hand,

black must have a reflectance not exceeding 3.13 percent, or 4.61 percent if

the black is matte. Thus, black contrasts well not only with white, but also

with yellow, which must have a reflectance of at least 50.68 percent. Orange,

too, which the standard restricts to a reflectance range between 24.58 and

36.20 percent, contrasts adequately with black if the orange is chosen toward

the lighter and of the range.

Collins (1983) has made some contrast measurements of actual signs of

various colors, both in the laboratory and in place in a coal mine and in a

limestone mine. Her results show that in the real world, many safety signs,

despite dirt accumulation, do have a reflectance ratio of 7 or 8 between their

light and dark parts, but many others have a ratio closer to 4. Most of the

latter group were red and white signs.

5.2.2 Luminance Contrast

Contrast can be defined and measured quantitatively. This section is

devoted entirely to lightness or brightness contrast, which depends only on the

28
luminous reflectances or luminances of the print and background, and is not at

all concerned with their chromaticities. If we let L^ be the luminance of the

"target" — in this case, the lettering on the sign — and Ly^ be the luminance

of the background on which the lettering is printed, then the usual definition

of contrast, C^, is

C = -2 1 ^ Q^)

Lb

In various applications, the sign of the numerator of Eq. (16), and hence

of C^, is defined in different ways. Since vision is ordinarily tested with

dark letters on a light background, the situation of most concern here involves

Ljj being much greater than L^- . Thus, contrast was defined in Eq. (16) so that

it would be positive for dark print on a light background. By this choice,

light print on a dark background involves negative contrast values. We can now

state quantitatively what was meant in section 5.1 by "high" contrast: a C of

at least 85 percent (0.85) is considered acceptable in an eye chart (National

Academy of Sciences, 1980).

Note that C^ in Eq. (16) can be written in the form

C = 1 - ^ , (17)

Lb

or

C = 1 - 1 , (18)

R

where

Lk

R = -^ , (19)

Lt

the luminance ratio of the bright background to the dark target.

Solving Eq. (18) for R results in the reverse equation

R = 1 . (20)

1 - C

29
According to Eq. (20), when C^ = 0.85, then R = 6.67. In other words, a

good eye chart has a background-to-lnk luminance (or, equivalently , luminous

reflectance) ratio of around 7 or more. In fact, the reflectance ratio, R, on

a chart of high quality, may be 10 (C^ = 0.90) or even more than 25 (C^ = 0.96).

Recently, a body of data on visual acuity as a function of both luminance

and contrast was collected in Japan (Nakane and Ito, 1978). Kaneko (1982), in

an American publication, has discussed these data and presented an equation of

simple form that he has fitted to the middle ranges of the data. Figure 3 shows

that Kaneko 's formula, represented by the straight lines in the graph, fits the

mean Nakane-Ito data quite well,

Kaneko regards his formula as accurate within the followings limits:

1 < L^ < 1000 cd/m^, 10 <_ C <_ 90%, 0.2 j< V < 2.0 min"^; (21)

where L,^ denotes the background luminance of the white screen on which the

dark symbols were presented; C^ denotes contrast as defined in Eq. (16), but

multiplied by 100 to make it a percentage; and V denotes visual acuity defined

as the reciprocal of the finest resolvable detail measured in minutes of arc.

Kaneko ' s formula is

V = k Lg C*l, (22)

where the values of the constants k, p^, and q^ are

k = 0.06298, p = 0.21310, q = 0.53158. (23)

Figure 3 is a log-log plot of V_ against J^ with C^ as the parameter. By

taking the logarithms of both sides of Eq. (22), we obtain

log V = log k + p log Lb + q log C. (24)

With C^ regarded as a parametric constant, Eq. (24) shows that a plot

of log V against log L^ yields a straight line with the fixed slope £ and a yintercept of log k. + q^ log C, which depends on the value of C^. Thus, as

30
OO CO CM

CM

(i-Uiiu) Aiinov ivnsiA

H a) CO j2 4J u CO • T3 ^\ CD l4-t 00 to (U o

r^ x: 0^ -U 4-1 CO -H 03 (1) ^w' CO o bO

>-( •p 3 O JJ CO

J-> c to

M

M

O 4J O o (U T3 T3 ^ C J= 4-1 nj 4-1 -3

•H CU (U

(D S -H T) C rH •H

to •> •1-1 CD ^ 0) M-l 4-) to o 3 • z c (U O --N

CO ^ CvJ S «;r

M-l CI O -rAe

4-> <U 00

— E CO 3 CO ^-^

J-l r-\ -H 4-1 ^^ CO 3 ^ o ^3 X) X) a bO^ O d >-i •H 0)

<U 3 o i-> 3 X O 14-1 CO y^ •u u H Ja:J o bO 0) CU O >J 4= cx a i

4J

O

to

—. 43

4-» O

ex o 3 (-1 z CM 4-1 +J 4= T3

CN cn -3 4-1 0) ^J ^ d 3 •H

•H

O 4-1 14-1 s . to a CO -H cr bo CD -3 M to d) CO O ^3 U (U S

^5 >.

u 3 aeC9

CO 4-J o •rH d 3 o o )^ B o CO (U ^ o !-i CO a; x: Q) ^

flQ o 3

•H

4-> 3

CO CO -H M-l fcid /-^ 3 o

CN CO r-l >. 00 -t-l to CD 43 0^ > 3 3

.—1

O

O -3

v-^ IW bO •H CD o to CD S

CO •r-t 3 -H - 4-1 -3 0) CO o o 4-1 rH ^ -H T3 >< o

d) ex •H (U C i-H n—

CO bO

O -3 ^

1^

O CO (V -H

rH x: cvj

U-l 1 <U CO ^^ O bO J= CO O H -3 • 4J -H cr

•rH - W

1+-I to • T3 ^-.

V4 (U -O CO 0) > >, O -H 4-) !-i 4-1 O cu 3 -H

bO

X CJ T3

O, CO •H ^3 dJ to !-i <U rH ^^ x: !-i CO 4= CO H bO euH > • CO

cu^3

bO

•H^

31
confirmed in Fig. 3, the family of curves for various values of C^ is a set of

parallel straight lines with common slope p^ = 0.21310. For any two values of

C — let us say C^ and £2 — the vertical separation between the lines is

(log k. + CL log Ci) - (log k + q^ log C2) = q^ log (CJ/C2). We see, then, that

the spacing between lines is determined by the ratio of the associated contrasts.

It follows that the lines for C^ = 80 and 40 are the same distance apart as the

lines for C^ = 40 and 20 , as well as the lines for C^ = 20 and 10 , since all

three line pairs correspond to a contrast ratio of 2 to 1. This equality of

spacing is apparent in Fig. 3.

What is the effect of reducing contrast? For a given luminance level, we

move straight downward in Fig. 3 from one of the higher lines to one of the

lower lines. What is more, regardless of what the luminance level is, the

amount of downward shift in Fig. 3 is the same, since the lines corresponding

to the two levels of contrast are parallel. Thus, a particular reduction of

contrast results in a fixed amount of reduction in log visual acuity; which is

to say, in reduction of visual acuity by a fixed ratio. By applying Kaneko's

formula, Eq. (22), we can express the correspondence between contrast reduction

and the drop in visual acuity in quantitative terms.

Suppose we initially have a contrast of Cj and are concerned with the

effect of reducing the contrast to a level C2 . Then the visual acuities, y_i

and y_2* corresponding to these two contrast levels at the fixed luminance

level L]j, are, by Eq. (22),

V^ = kLgC^ and V2 = kL^C^ . (25)

The ratio of the two visual acuities in Eqs. (25) is then

V2 C^

(26)

32
the Ic and L^P terms having divided out of the ratio.

Equation (26) is a relatively simple relationship which tells us that the

ratio of the visual acuities is determined by the ratio of the contrasts; and,

specifically, that the Vy/V-\ ratio is obtained by raising the C2/C2 ratio to

the fixed power q^ = 0.53158.

As an example, let us look at the result of reducing contrast from the

high level of 90 percent to the medium level of 40 percent. The contrast ratio

(of the second level to the first) is 40/90 = 0.44444. Therefore, Eq. (26)

tells us that the ratio of the visual acuities corresponding to this contrast

reduction is 0.444440-53158 = 0.64981.

As Eq. (26) shows, this result is independent of the initial level of

contrast, and depends only on the contrast reduction factor (i.e., the ratio).

Thus, if we start with a contrast level of 40 percent and reduce the contrast

to 17.778 percent — again 0.44444 times the initial value — then the visual

acuity again goes down to a fraction of its initial value equal to

0,44444*^ '53158 = 0.64981. Note that the effect of the fractional exponent is

to make the reduction factor for visual acuity less extreme (i.e., closer to

unity) than the factor for the contrast reduction, the discrepancy being greater

the more the contrast ratio departs from unity.

Note also that, although we have been concerned with contrast reduction

up to this point, there is nothing in Eq. (26) that restricts C2 to being

less than C^ . The formula, in fact, does apply just as well to contrast

increases . As a check of this, consider the reverse of the earlier problem:

what is the effect on visual acuity of increasing contrast from ^j^ = 40 to

C9 = 90? This time the contrast ratio (second to first) is 2.25, and

2.25^*53158 = 1.5389. This visual-acuity ratio is again less extreme (closer

33
to unity) than the contrast ratio, and, as expected, is the reverse (i.e.,

reciprocal) of the ratio found earlier for the decreasing direction between

the same contrast levels (since 1.5389 x 0.64981 = 0.99999).

Equation (26), then, provides the simple method sought for allowing for

changes in contrast in the calculation of letter stroke-widths needed for

various levels of visual acuity. However, it is important to realize that a

very strong assumption is involved in applying Eq. (26) for this purpose. What

we have actually shown is that, for the relatively high-acuity observers used

by Nakane and Ito (1978), Eq. (26) tells us how the visual acuity of those

observers varies with changes in contrast, for the average of that group. What

we have to assume is that the same rule applies to any group of observers, even

if their visual acuity measured under standard test conditions is well below

the normal 20/20. The data needed would come from a repeat of the Nakane-Ito

study using several groups of observers, the group means spreading over a wide

range of standardized visual acuity scores, with each group covering a relatively

narrow range. Does Eq. (22) apply in general form to people with 20/200 vision

under standard test conditions, as well as to people with 20/20 vision? If so,

does the exponent q^ in Eq. (22) have the same numerical value for the low-vision

group, so that Eq. (26) can be applied universally? We do not yet know the

answers to these questions, so in order to be able to make a quantitative estimate of the effect of contrast changes, it appears reasonable to use Eq. (26)

until such time as either practical experience in applying the equation to sign

design, or formal vision studies, indicate that it is not always valid. Fortunately, a figure presented by Nakane and Ito (1978), showing data for individual

observers covering the narrow range of acuity (2 to 1) represented within the

group, suggests that the foregoing assumptions may well be true.

34
In actual practice, the "standard" conditions for administering acuity

screening tests are not fully standardized. In particular, the white-background

luminance level recently recommended as standard by the NAS-NRC Vision Committee

(National Academy of Sciences, 1980) — namely 85+5 cd/m^ (candelas per square

meter) — is far from universally observed. (The equivalent level in customary

units is 25 + 1»^ fL> the approximate conversion factor being 1 fL = 3.42626

cd/m^,) It is not only lower luminance levels, but also higher levels, that

cause a problem. Figure 3 shows that exceeding the minimum required contrast

level of 85 percent (co incidentally the same number as the standard luminance)

does not importantly increase acuity, but it also shows that substantially

exceeding the 85-cd/ra2 standard luminance level will result in significantly

higher acuity ratings. We can use Kaneko's (1982) formula — Eq. (22) — to

determine what the mean visual acuity of Nakane and Ito's observers would be

under the NA.S-recommended conditions. Since the NAS (1980) only requires a

minimum contrast of 85 percent, we have to choose a particular C >^ 85 as the

standard. _C = 90 is convenient, since 90 is a round number, is not a difficult

level of contrast to achieve in practice, and corresponds to the upper limit of

application of Kaneko's formula [see Eq. (21)]. Accordingly, let us substitute

the values _L^ = 85 and _C = 90 into Eq. (22). The result is a visual acuity

value of _V = 1.7750, corresponding to a Snellen notation of approximately

20/11 — very sharp vision indeed, for a group.

Kaneko (1982) and Nakane and Ito (1980) report that the latter 's 52

observers had a somewhat lower mean _V of 1.4 (a Snellen score of 20/14), apparently according to a preliminary screening test administered at an unspecified

luminance level, rather than from the experimental data themselves. It is

understandable that this group of observers had superior acuity: Nakane and

35
Ito's (1980) list of the observers' ages shows that all but four of them were

in the youthful age range of 19 to 28 years. [For some reason, the Kaneko

(1982) paper reports this range of ages as "10 to 20."] The total range of

visual acuity scores represented in the screeening test results — including

the four older observers — was from a low of 20/20 (!), up to 20/10 (_V = 1.0

to 2.0). Note that 20/14 is not significantly better average vision than is to

be found in Americans of comparable age. Roberts (1964) reports that 58 percent

of Americans aged 18 to 24 years have an acuity level of 20/15 or better for

"corrected" distance vision.

The discrepancy between the screening-test mean (V = 1.4) and the mean

results (V = 1.7750) of the experiment itself for the "standard" contrast and

luminance is not particularly puzzling: viewing conditions and procedures in

the experiment probably differed considerably from those used in the presumably

Snellen-chart-type screening test (which was not actually described in either

paper). In particular, the uniformly lit white background in the experiment

filled a large part of the observer's visual field (160° by 90°, according to

Kaneko), whereas the white background of a clinical testing chart is comparatively small, and the rest of the room is typically lit to lower levels than

is the chart.

We are now in a position to hypothesize explicitly what the generalized

form of Eq. (22) is, if indeed there is a universal formula applying to people

with all levels of visual acuity. The simplest result would be for Fig. 3 to

be regarded as applying specifically to people of superior standard acuity, and

for the entire family of lines to be simply shifted downward by an amount

depending on the standard visual acuity of the observer group of interest.

The lower the standard acuity of the group, the further down the lines would

36
be pushed. Such a fixed-distance downward shift of log visual acuity (the

ordinate dimension in Fig. 3) corresponds, as we have noted earlier, to division by a fixed constant (i.e., to a fixed ratio of visual acuities). If we

denote by V_g the mean standard visual acuity of a group of observers (or of

a single individual), and if we define the standard conditions to be Lj, = 85, ^ = 90, then we can correct the V_ value obtained from Eq. (22) by multiplying

by the factor _Vg/1.7750. Explicit application of this correction will be

postponed to section 5.5.

For situations in which high accuracy is not needed in the evaluation of

the power function of Eq. (26), it is easy to construct a graph that permits

V9/V] to be read off for any value of ^/Cj^ . Taking the logarithm of both

sides of Eq. (26) yields the relationship

V2 C2

log — = q log ;^— . (27)

Vi q

A log-log plot of the V-ratio against the C^-ratio is seen in Eq. (27) to

consist of a straight line with slope q (= 0.53158). This plot is shown in

Fig. 4, which can be used to determine the V-ratio from the C^-ratio when

accuracy is not important. If we take the greatest V_ of interest to be 2.0

(20/10), and the smallest to be 0.05 (20/400), then the greatest V-ratio it is

necessary to deal with is 2.0/0.05 = 40. Similarly, when the ratio is of the

smaller to the larger V value, the minimum ratio of interest is 1/40. Thus,

the log V-ratio axis should cover at most 4 log cycles, from 0.01 up to 100.

Because of the limitation of C to the range from 10 to 90 percent [Eq. (21)] in

order for Eq. (22) to be valid, the minimum and maximum C-ratios with which we

need to deal are 1/9 and 9. Accordingly, only two log cycles are needed for

37
-II I I I I \l I Mill I I

I

Z '-

tn

)o

CM

CO

2 I

m m

^A/^A'oiiv« AiintivivnsiA

r^

CM

v--'

w eo

»-l o l4-t

•r-l 4J bO

nJ C

M •H

J-) jj i-l CO 3

rt CO

»-i <u 4J M

c

o >l

o

1 C

ij •H c

<u <U

CJ W) M c

(U CO axo m

o <u X

c JJ o

•H M-l

4-t o

O

c CO 3 cu

M-l 4J

CO « s

•H

CO •u

nj CO

0) o

•rH cu 4J JJ

CO CO

i-< e

•H

>^ ><

4-1 o

•H (-1 3 a

CJ &,

CO

1 CO

1 M

CO o

3 CM

CO •H CO > 15O • LW r-ilZJ o H

CO C

•u •H o <U iH i-i (U a 3 bO

bO d

bO-H CO o w X iH o

1 CO bO-H >> O X C! iJ H CO

3

bO

•i-l fa

38
the C-ratio axis, from 0.1 up to 10. Since the V-ratios corresponding to these

two extreme values on the C-ratio axis are about 0.29 and 3.4, respectively,

we see that on this graph only two log cycles are needed for the log V-ratio

axis as well , covering the same range of 0.1 to 10

5.3 LUMINANCE

Adjustments to visual acuity because of changes in luminance level can be

treated in a manner analogous to the way we have dealt with contrast. Now we

are concerned with a change from a luminance of L^-^ to a luminance of 1^132 •

According to Eq. (22), the visual acuities V^]^ and V2 corresponding to these two

luminance levels, with the fixed contrast C, are

^1 " '^^Sl^^ ^^^ ^2 " ^^^2^^ • ^2^)

The ratio of the two visual acuities in Eqs. (28) is then

V2

~= ^li

= [HiY , ,

, (29)

Vl Lgi \Lbi J

with the fixed terms k and Cl having divided out of the ratio. The basic forms

of the relationships (26) and (29) are the same — namely, they are power

functions — and only the exponents are different. Since p^ (= 0.21310), as well

as q^, is less than unity, the acuity ratio is less than the luminance ratio,

just as we have seen it is less than the contrast ratio. However, since p^ is

even smaller than q^, the acuity ratio differs less with luminance changes than

with contrast changes, on a ratio basis.

As a numerical example, let us consider the result of reducing luminance

by the same ratio that we used in our first example for contrast reduction.

This time we reduce an initial luminance of 90 cd/m^ to 40 cd/m^. The luminance

ratio (of the second level to the first) is 0.44444. Equation (29) tells us

39
that the ratio of the visual acuities corresponding to this luminance reduction

is 0.444440*21310 = 0.84130. This compares to the acuity ratio of 0.64981 that

corresponds to the same numerical reduction in contrast, a confirmation of the

stronger role played by contrast, compared to luminance, in determining visual

acuity. (The smaller fraction corresponds to the more drastic acuity reduction.)

The reverse shift, from L_l = 40 cd/m to L_l = 90 cd/m , involves a

luminance ratio of 90/40 = 2.25, and a corresponding visual acuity ratio of

2.25O.213IO = 1.1886. This is, as it must be, the reciprocal of the acuity

ratio of 0.84130 that corresponds to the reverse luminance shift (1.1886 x

0.84130 = 0.99997).

The logarithmic version of Eq. (29) is

log Z2. = p log H2 ^ (3Q)

Vl Lbi

A log-log plot of the _V-ratio against the _Lt)-ratio consists of a straight

line of slope p = 0.21310. Figure 5 shows this graph, which may be used for

low-accuracy conversion of luminance ratio to the corresponding acuity ratio.

Because we may deal validly [Eq. (21)] with luminances from 1 to 1000 cd/m^,

the luminance ratios of interest cover a range from 0.001 to 1000, or six

logarithmic cycles. However, the V-ratio values corresponding to these extreme

L]3-ratios are approximately 0.23 and 4.4, respectively, a surprisingly narrow

range resulting from the small value of the exponent p^. Consequently, the

V-ratio range in Fig. 5 is the same as in Fig. 4: namely, the two log cycles

from 0.1 to 10.

5.4 CONTRAST AND LUMINANCE COMBINED

It is easy to combine the formulas (26) and (29), to allow for changes of

both contrast and larainance. The formulas can be applied one after the other,

40
INI iVJ I

\ [ III I I I I r

- 8

I I I I III! II I l\l

CM

in m

^h/ ^A 'oiiv)i Aunav ivnsiA

o

c

c x:

•H J-) B

rH O

I 13 m

C 0) 3 -u o m

bO "H ^ -u O ra

S

•Hou

Oua

o

•i-i o

c

3

«« o c

<4-l 'H

CO

rt m 0) S bC O O G

•H iH CO

4-> iH X CO CO O

U

0) >-, >^ H C

4J 3 CO •H bO O U-l o

CO

I CO 1+-I

CO ^ bO 3 H C

to 'H •H 4J > • rH

'-i 3

IW /-v CO O O 0) fO S-i o >|

0) rH O bO

1 -H C! bO -U CO O CO ^

<U3

bO

•H

41
in either order. To derive the combined formula directly, we go back, to Eq. (22)

and allow for two sets of conditions: the first with contrast and luminance C]^

and Ijbl > ^rid the second with corresponding quantities C2 and _L{j2 • The visual

acuities corresponding to these two sets of conditions, Vj^ and V2 , respectively,

are, according to Eq. (22),

The ratio of the two visual acuities in Eqs. (31) is

V2 Lg2S5

(32)

Vl LgiCj

the k factors having divided out of the ratio.

Thus, correcting visual acuity to allow for changes in both luminance and

contrast [Eq. (32)] is done by simply taking the product of the separate

correction factors for luminance [Eq. (29)] and contrast [Eq. (26)].

5.5 APPLICATION OF THE CONTRAST AND LUMINANCE ADJUSTMENTS

We have seen that for our standard viewing conditions of 90 percent

contrast, and a luminance of 85 cd/m^, formula (22) predicts a visual acuity of

1.7750. We are concerned with being able to make predictions of the effects of

deviations from these standard viewing conditions. Therefore, we can choose in

Eq. (32) to regard condition number 1 as referring always to the standard

situation, i.e.,

l^^ = 85 cd/m^; C^ = 90%; V-^ = 1.7750 . (33)

Substituting these values into Eq. (32), we obtain

V9 L^o P Co ^ 1.7750 85 90

with 2, ^i^d q^ still being the constants defined in Eqs. (23).

42
We can now drop the subscript 2 from Eq. (34) and write it in the form

L, P C

'I V = 1.7750(-^) (—) . (35)

It is clear by inspection of Eq. (35) that if we choose the standard

conditions Ljj = 85 and C^ = 90, the two rightmost factors are both unity, and

V= 1.7750, as it should.

As a final adjustment, we introduce at this point the factor Vg/ 1.7750

discussed in section 5.2.2. This factor corrects the visual acuity value predicted by Eq. (35) to the value Vg , the standard visual acuity of the specific

group or individual for which we want to make predictions. The result is

V = V (-^) ( ) . (36)

s 85 90

Since the standard visual acuity (L^ = 85 and C^ = 90) of the Nakane-Ito

observers to whom Eq. (22) applies is 1.7750, for them V_s = 1.7750, and Eq. (36)

reduces to Eq. (35), as it should. If we want to deal with a population with

the classically assumed "normal" resolution of 1 minute of arc (20/20 vision),

then V g = 1 for them, and the constant in Eq. (36) disappears. In the latter

case, all acuities predicted by Eq. (36) are lower, by a factor of 1/1.7750,

than the acuities predicted for the Nakane-Ito group. This is the nature of

the simple correction postulated in the discussion of _Vg in section 5.2.2.

Finally, we want to be able to translate Eq. (36) into a form involving S^,

the Snellen denominator, rather than V, the visual acuity. Since the Snellen

fraction, 20/ S^, is directly equal to the visual acuity, V, in reciprocal minutes

of arc — i.e.

,

V = 20/S; (37)

43
then we can substitute for V and Vg in Eq. (36) the equivalent expressions given

by Eq. (37), and obtain

The factors of 20 in Eq. (38) divide out, and, taking the reciprocals

of both sides, we obtain the final formula we are seeking:

85 P 90 ^

S = Ss(—) (—

)

(39)

^b C

where £ and q^ are given numerically in Eqs. (23), and S^g is the Snellen

denominator for the observer group for which we want to specify letter stroke

widths on a sign. What Eq. (39) tells us is the proper Si value to use in

entering Eq. (13) to predict the just-visible stroke width, for an observer

with 20/ Sq vision under standard conditions. Of course, there is no need to

bother with Eq. (39) unless Ll deviates from the standard value of 85 cd/m ,

or C^ deviates from the standard value of 90 percent. When those two parameters

have their standard values, then Eq. (39) reduces to simply

S = Sg, (40)

which means that the S^ value to use in Eq. (13) is the S^ value applying to the

observer in question under standard viewing conditions.

As an example, suppose we are concerned with allowing for observers with

standard Snellen acuities of 20/60 (V_ = 1/3). Suppose that we want to allow

for a heavy coating of dust all over the sign, which would reduce the contrast

to 45 percent, but we are designing for a very brightly lit room which produces

a luminance of 170 cd/m^ on the dusty white sign background. Then, to determine

the equivalent Snellen denominator for these non-standard conditions, we

44
substitute into Eq. (39) the values Sq = 60 , Ltq = 170, and C^ = 45 . The result

is

S = 60 X (1)

* X 2°*^3158.

(^^^^

S = 60 X 0.86268 x 1.4455; (42)

S = 60 X 1.2470; (43)

S = 74.82. (44)

Since the right-hand factor in Eq. (43) is greater than unity, we see that

reducing the contrast to half its standard value, while at the same time doubling the standard luminance, results in dominance by the contrast loss; i.e.,

a net degradation of vision from 20/60 to [Eq. (44)] 20/75. (This confirms our

previous observation about the greater potency of contrast changes, relative to

luminance changes of the same ratio.) In this case, we would apply Eq. (13) to

determine the needed stroke width with a value of S^ = 74.82, rather than 60,

and so the corresponding letters would be about 25 percent larger than they

would have been if we had been designing for the same 20/60 observers under

standard viewing conditions.

45
6. SUMMARY OF STEPS TO DETERMINE LETTER SIZE

To determine : the size of letters on a sign.

Given ; the maximum distance, d^, at which anyone will need to read the

sign; and the Snellen index, 20/S^, corresponding to the most visually handicapped people for whom allowance is to be made.

Significance of solution : using the letter size (height), h, to be

derived, should allow people with 20/ S^ vision or better to read the sign at any

distance up to d_.

Steps :

1. Decide on the units (e.g., feet, meters) in which the distance d

is to be measured. Decide on the units (e.g.. Inches, centimeters) in

which the letter-height h_ is to be measured. The stroke width, ws, will

be measured in the same units.

2. Decide on the type face to be used. Determine the height-tostrokewidth ratio, g^, characterizing letters in that face.

3. Substitute the given viewing distance, d^, and the denominator,

S^, of the given Snellen index, into Eq. (13) to obtain the required stroke

width, wg. The equation is

Wg = 1.45 X 10"^ X S X d,

and at this point wg will be expressed in the same units as are used for d_.

4. Convert wg as deteirmlned in step 3 into the units selected for it

in step 1. Examples: to convert wg in feet to be in inches, multiply by

12; to convert wg in meters to be in millimeters, multiply by 1000.

5. Multiply the stroke width, wg , from step 4, by the ratio, ^, from

step 2, to determine the letter height, h.

46
6. If feasible, order the sign made with very black letters on a

very white background (not feasible if the sign is to be color-coded); and

light the sign, when it is installed, to a luminance level of at least 85

candelas per square meter (cd/m^) [or 25 footlamberts (fL)] on the white

background. If both conditions are met, the problem is solved. If either

of these two conditions is not feasible or not desired, proceed to step 7

and/or step 8, respectively.

7. If the lettering or the background is noticeably colored, or if

the black of the letters is not a really deep black, or if the white of

the background is not a really brilliant white, then contrast measurements

will have to be made. One alternative would be to use a luminance meter.

Obtain a test sign with the exact colors of lettering and background to be

used, and set it up under the same type of light source that is going to

be used (e.g., high pressure sodium or cool white fluorescent). Use any

size letters large enough to make luminance measurements easy. Since

the geometry (positioning) of both the light distribution and the measuring

instrument, with respect to the sample, can affect contrast, position the

sign with respect to the light source in the same way it will be positioned

when installed. Hold the luminance meter so that it "sees" the sign at

the same angle that most people will view the sign when it is installed.

In the absence of other information, let the meter's line of view be

perpendicular to the sign surface. Measure the luminance of the letters,

L^, and the luminance of the background, L]^. A second alternative is

to measure not luminance but luminous reflectance. Again, the same type

of light source and geometry must be used as will be used in the area in

which the sign will be located. Unfortunately, most reflectance47
measuring instruments contain their own fixed light source, so luminance

measurement is more likely to be practical.

8. If it is expected that the luminance of the sign's light

background (lo.) may be lower than 85 cd/m when the sign is installed,

then luminance measurements similar to those described in step 7 will have

to be made. If the sign is to be installed in an already existing lighted

space (as opposed to the situation where signs are being planned for a

space not yet constructed or not yet lit), then the test sign should be

Installed in the exact spot where the final sign is to be placed. If only

this step, and not step 7 is necessary, there is no need to measure L^^,

the luminance of the letters.

9. If step 7 was not carried out, proceed to step 10. If step 7

was necessary, substitute L^^ and L^^- into Eq. (16) to determine the

luminance contrast, C^. The equation is

C = -^ !^ ^ Lb

Then multiply C^ by 100 to obtain percentage contrast, C^.

10. Substitute I,]^ and C into Eq. (39). The equation is

85 P 90 "1 S = Ss (—) (—

)

^b C

where [Eqs. (23)]

p = 0.21310 and q = 0.53158.

In Eq. (39), the quantity S_q corresponds to the given Snellen denominator,

^. The output of Eq. (39) is called S^, and is intended to replace the

original S_. If step 7 was unnecessary (no contrast measured) , simply omit

the last (contrast) term in Eq. (39); then only Lt^, £, and Sg are needed.

48
11. Using the adjusted S^ value obtained in step 10, go back and

carry out steps 4 and 5. Step 5 completes the solution.

49
7 . REFERENCES

ANSI (American National Standards Institute). Safety Color Code for Marking

Physical Hazards , Z53.1, 1979.

ATBCB (Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board). Minimum

Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design, 36 CFR Part 1190. Federal

Register, 46, 4270-4304, 1981.

Beebe-Center, J. G., Mead, L. C, Wagoner, K. S., and Hoffman, A. C. Visual

Acuity and Distance of Observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 35,

pp. 473-484, 1945.

Berger, C. The Dependency of Visual Acuity on Illumination and Its Relation

to the Size and Function of the Retinal Units. American Journal of Psychology , 54, pp. 336-351, 1941.

Brovm, J. L. The Structure of the Visual System. In Graham, C. H. (Ed.),

Vision and Visual Perception , New York: Wiley, 1965.

Chapanis , A. and Scarpa, L. C. Readability of Dials at Different Distances

with Constant Visual Angle. Human Factors , 9(5), pp. 419-425, 1967.

CIE (Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage) . Recommendations on Uniform

Color Spaces, Color-Difference Equations, Psychometric Color Terms . Supplement

No. 2 to CIE Publication No. 15. Paris: Bureau Central de la CIE, 1978.

Collins, B. L. Use of Hazard Pictorials/Symbols in the Minerals Industry.

NBSIR, in preparation, 1983.

Collins, B. L., Danner, W. F., and Tibbott, R. L. Communication Systems for

Disabled Users of Buildings. NBSIR 81-2428, December 1981.

Dimmick, F. L. and Rudolph, L. M. Checkerboard Visual Acuity Targets: An

Experimental Validation . U.S. Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, New

London Medical Research Laboratory, Project No. NM-003-0C8 (X-423), Report

No. 1, 14 pp., December 1948.

Duke-Elder, S. and Abrams, D. (Eds.) Ophthalmic Optics and Refraction . Vol. V of Duke-Elder, S. (Ed.), System of Ophthalmology . St. Louis: C. V.

Mosby, 1970.

Giese, W. J. The Interrelationship of Visual Acuity at Different Distances.

Journal of Applied Psychology , 30, pp. 91-106, 1946.

Huchingson, R. D. New Horizons for Human Factors in Design . New York: McGrawHill, 1981.

Judd, D. B. Color in Visual Signaling. In Committee on Vision, National

Research Council, Color Vision , 1971 Symposium. Washington D.C.: National

Academy of Sciences, 1973.

50
Kaneko, T. An Alternative ESI System Based on Human Visual Acuity. Journal

of lES , 11(3), pp. 171-177, 1982.

Le Grand, Y. Form and Space Vision , Revised Ed., Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 1967.

McCormick, E. J. Human Factors Engineering , 3rd Edition. New York: McGrawHill, 1970.

Morgan, C. T., Cook, J. S. Ill, Chapanis , A., and Lund, M. W. Hviman Engineering

Guide to Equipment Design . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Nakane, Y. and Ito, K. Study on Standard Visual Acuity Curves for Better

Seeing in Lighting Design. Journal of Light and Visual Environment , 2(1),

pp. 38-44, 1978.

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Vision. Recommended Standard

Procedures for the Clinical Measurement and Specification of Visual Acuity.

Advances in Ophthalmology (Basel: Karger), 41, pp. 103-148, 1980.

Roberts, J. Binocular Visual Acuity of Adults: United States, 1960-1962 . Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 - Series 11 - No. 3, Washington, D.C.,

June 1964.

Tinker, M. A. Legibility of Print . Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press,

1963.

Tinker, M. A. Bases for Effective Reading . Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 1965.

Woodson, W. E. Human Factors Design Handbook . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.

Wyszecki, G. and Stiles, W. S. Color Science: Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulas. New York: Wiley, 1967.

51
APPENDIX A: TREATMENT OF CASE OF STROKE WIDTH AND VIEWING DISTANCE MEASURED

IN DIFFERENT UNITS

It is frequently Inconvenient to express the widths of letter strokes in

the same units of length in which the viewing distance is measured. If, for

example, we want to express wg in millimeters and d_ in meters, we use Eq. (13)

to obtain wg in meters, and then simply multiply the answer by 1000 to obtain

Wg in millimeters. This unit-conversion step can be combined with the basic

Eq. (13) to yield, in this case,

Wg = 0.0145 X S X d. (45)

To derive Eq. (45) from Eq. (13), we had to multiply the constant on the

right side by 1000, the number of millimeters in a meter. In general, the

absolute sizes of the units used for wg and d_ are irrelevant; it is only the

ratio of these unit sizes that affects the constant in the equation. Thus,

Eq. (45) — and its exact form, derived from Eq. (12) —

w^ = i!^ , (46)

S 216

apply to any combination of units such that the stroke width wg is measured in

units 1/1000 the size of the units in which the distance d. is measured. For

example, Eqs . (45) and (46) apply also when d_ is measured in inches and wg in

mils (thousandths of an inch).

We can treat the situation in general. Let IJ^j be the unit (e.g., the

meter) in which we want to measure d_. Let IJ^ be the unit (e.g., the

millimeter) in which we want to measure w. Then let

r = Ud/Uw (47)

Finally, we can generalize Eq. (12) by inserting r^ on the right side. The

result is

52
w_ = ^^^Sd , (48)

S 216,000

A similar generalization of the numerical form, Eq. (13), yields

Wg = 1.45 X 10"^ X r X S X d. (49)

When the units of measurement of wg and d_ are the same, then r_ = 1 , and

Eq. (48) reduces to Eq. (12), as it should. Similarly, when d^ is measured in

meters and wg in millimeters, then r^ = 1000, and Eq. (48) reduces to Eq. (46),

as required.

We have established that regardless of the choice of units for d_ and wg

,

the required stroke width, wg, for a person with 20/S^ vision looking at a

display at a distance d_ from him is

ws = PrSd, (50)

where £j. is a constant — depending on the choice of units — defined as

p = _JL£ . (51) ^

216,000

The explicit (three-significant-figure) equivalent of Eq. (51) is

Pj. = 1.45 X 10"^ X r. (52)

Table 3 gives the values of the ratio r^ corresponding to a variety of

possible choices of the units of measurement for wg and d_. Table 4 gives

expressions for the exact values of the constant p^j. corresponding to the

same combinations of measurement units. The numerical equivalents, to three

significant figures, are given in Table 5. For most ordinary applications,

it will be necessary to consult only Table 5.

The relationship (50) — like Eq. (12), of which it is a generalization —

is of a very simple form: it says that wg is simply proportional to d^, the

constant of proportionality being p^^. If we were to make a particular choice

of r_, thus fixing a numerical value for pj., we could then plot wg as a function

53
Table 3. Ratios of Distance Units to Stroke-Width Units.

These Ratios Correspond to Values of the Constant

r=U(i/Uw, in Eq. (47).

Stroke-Width Units

Distance Units

Feet

(Exact)

Yards

(Exact)

Meters

Exact Approximate

Thousandths of an inch (mils)

Hundredths of an inch

Sixty-fourths of an inch

Millimeters

Tenths of an inch

Centimeters

Inches

Meters

12,000

1,200

768

304.8

120

30.48

12

36,000

3,600

2,304

914.4

360

91.44

36

50,000

1.27

5,000

1.27

3,200

1.27

1,000

500

1.27

1.00

50

1.27

1

39,370.

3,937.

2,520.

1,000.^

393.7

100. Ob

39.37

i.ooob

^ The ratios for stroke width in meters and distance in feet and yards are omitted as combinations unlikely to be applied in practice.

^ These three ratios are exact; all other numbers in this column are approximate.

54
Table 4. Exact Values of the Constant p^ = iTr/216 ,000 , From Eq. (51).'

Values of r^ for the Same Combinations of Distance Units and

Stroke-Width Units Are Given in Table 3.

Stroke-Width Units

Distance Units

Feet Yards Meters

Thousandths of an inch (mils)

Hundredths of an inch

Sixty-fourths of an inch

Millimeters

Tenths of an inch

Centimeters

Inches

Meters

tt 18

IT 180

4rr

776

IT 60

4 17 375

127fT

30,000

TT 600

12777

62577

3,429

12577

6,858

4077 3,429

77 216

25-17

1,125

127tt

90,000

77 1,800

1277T

13,716

TT 900,000

n

300,000

7T

2,160

577 18,000 6,000 27,432

77 216,000

^ The values for stroke width in meters and distance in feet or yards are omitted as combinations unlikely to be applied in practice.

55
Table 5. Three-Figure Numerical Values of the Constant p of Eq. (50).'

Exact Expressions for These Values Are Given in Table 4

.

Stroke-Width Units

Distance Units f

Feet Yards Meters

Thousandths of an inch (mils)

Hundredths of an inch

Sixty-fourths of an inch

Millimeters

Tenths of an inch

Centimeters

Inches

Meters

1.75 X 10-1

1.75 X 10-2

1.12 X 10-2

4.43 X 10-3

1.75 X 10-3

4.43 X 10-^

1.75 X 10-^

5.24 X 10-1

5.24 X 10-2

3.35 X 10-2

1.33 X 10-2

5.24 X 10-3

1.33 X 10-3

5.24 X 10-^

5.73 X 10-1

5.73 X 10-2

3.66 X 10-2

1.45 X 10-2

5.73 X 10-3

1.45 X 10-3

5.73 X 10-^

1.45 X 10-5

^ The values for stroke width in meters and distance in feet or yards are omitted as combinations unlikely to be applied in practice.

56
of d, with S^ as a parameter. The result would be a family of lines through the

origin of the wg against d_ plot, each line corresponding to a particular value

of S^.

Just as we derived Eq. (14) from Eq. (13), we take the logs of both sides

of Eq. (50) and obtain

log Wg = log p;^ + log S + log d. (53)

Inspection of Eq. (53) shows that a plot of log wg against log d^ always

yields a straight line of unit slope (at 45°), regardless of the choice of

measurement units (pj) or of the observer's visual acuity (indexed by S)

.

Hence, the pencil ("fan") of lines through the origin obtained by plotting wg

against d_ is replaced, in the log-log plot, by a family of parallel lines of

unit slope. The spacing between these lines, each line corresponding to a

particular value of S^, is fixed, once a particular selection of S^ values is

chosen. The choice of units of measurement, embodied in the constant p^-

,

affects the graph only by moving the entire parallel bundle of lines rigidly up

or down along the wg axis, in accordance with the value of the additive constant

log pj..

Just as we were able to plot Fig. 2 using Eq. (13), we can plot analogous

graphs for any combination of units for wg and d_ by using Eq. (50). If the combination of units of interest is listed in Table 5, the value of Pj. can be read

from the table and substituted directly into Eq. (50). Otherwise, the value of

Pt- for any combination of units can be calculated from Eq. (52), based on the _r

value defined in Eq. (47).

Three additional graphs of this sort are presented in Figs. 6 through 8.

The unit combinations represented were chosen to be of likely practical interest.

57
Figure 6, like Fig. 2, is metric, applying for viewing distance measured in

meters, and stroke width in millimeters. Figures 7 and 8 deal with customary

(English) units, Fig. 7 applying for viewing distance in feet and stroke width

in inches, and Fig. 8 applying when the viewing distance is given instead in

yards.

Figures 2 and 6 to 8 can be used for rapid, order-of-magnitude estimates,

but Eq. (50) is so easy to use that the algebraic procedure outlined two paragraphs back should be the method of choice for serious applications in which

repeated unit conversions are to be avoided.

58
</> \ \ * \ V \ \ ^ '^ \\\ \ ^ \ V ^ ^ ^ ' ^ \\\Vn\^ \ \ \\v s ^ s 8

N") HiOMlMMlS

•^^

C ^ rt Q)

1-1 .H m en .H

•H CO 0) > 3

>, CO

p 4-) <u •H <U u 3 X!

i-i o P

(U CO iH M-l .H o U CO o 3 CD

M-l CO OJ •H 3

T3 > -H

0) CO U ?-l >

•H cu

:3 > 3

cru <U

0) 0) >

S-i CO <D ^ CO ^-s o

03

U

!-i J2 o

0) •p 14-1 •U •iH 0) & •» B /~^

•r^ - o i-H y~^ u^

t-H CO -s.^ •H !-i CU • ^ w cr

<]>

w

-C

a ^ Nw^ o

^3 4J

•r^ 0) ^ o XI

p: 3

(V CO o ^ •u Cli o CO CO

Ul •H <u •u X) u

CO !-l bO O

fi pi

O 3 iM S > CD •H (U CU c •H 3

•H > •H a

M-l

r-l

U-l o CU • o X C/3 c H 4-> o *« O •H S-I r-t 4J • o

cx o U •u 3 0) CO bO 3 4J 3 O 14-1 <u •H -H s 1 CO CO O

bO

M 3 O CO CO (U hJ CO o-xt •

0)H

:3bO

ptl

59
TS S CM C^ <M S S

CO \ N \ \ \ %^ ^ V ^ ^ \ " ^ ^v ^ ^ ^ \ ^, \ ^ \ \\\V s

C9 s C

>^ 0) +J .H

•H rt .H

rH 0) •H CD c ^ ri Crt •Hm t^ <u •H 4-1 X > •H3

AJ P o IW

(1) nJ o

4J

4J -H CD

Q) CO (U .H 3 3

CD iH

V4 •H CO O > >

H-l

U

C

^3 (U <u

0) > > ^ P <u •H (U CO 3 CO cr ^ S-i CU o o M

4=

M-l ^^ •u «^ CD •H ^^

(U & o X in o «« v.^ c /^S •H +J • ^-^ (U cr

0)

w

X U-l

J-) N^^ o

t3 4-) •H 01 s o T) c c

0) c« o ^ J-l a o CD CO

!^ •H (U 4J -o !^ m l-i bO o C CJ 3 •H S !5 CD •H cu <U C •nl c

•H > •H a

IW

<-\

4-1

O <D • O X^ CO c H

•U o •^ o •H (-1 iH 4-) • o

aO P 4J c (U CO bO 3 4-) C o m OJ •H

<H S e 1 CO CO o

bO i-i c O CD CO 0) hJ CO aT3

0)3

hO

fX4 Nl HIOM Jm^LS

60
- s M S 9i s

4J to iH H ra (u H «0 C n CO

rH >. W 4-J (U > 3 +J O

Jj n3 <4-i 0) O

CO 3

^-1 •H

cr o

d)u ^4-1

CO ^ O y^ C CD •H t3

CO ^ >^

•u ^^^

•rH OJ ^ O O CO U -H

4J t3

CO

|ui| HiaiM 3)IOdlS

•H >

<+-)

O

O c

4J

O

-H rH -U o y-i

r-{1 CO bOO CO iJ CO

c»

(U

J-i 3

bO

•H

fa

cr wo

4Jco

ex

COCUuuoo

COc

•H

Xi CO H• O

5-1 4J

(U CO 4J C!

CO CU

61
NB5-n4A (REV. 2-80) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBS TN 1180

2. Performing Organ. Report N04 3. Publication Date July 1983

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Size of Letters Required for Visibility as a Function of Viewing Distance and Observer

Visual Acuity

5. AUTHOR(S)

Gerald L. Howett

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION fif joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No. TAG J-9-F-7-0146

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

Washington, D C 20210

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

A formula is derived giving the letter stroke-width needed for legibility of words on

a sign at any given distance by an observer with any given visual acuity. The stroke

width, in turn, determines the letter size, depending upon the characteristics of the

type face used. The derivation is strictly mathematical and is based on the assumption

that beyond a distance of a few meters, a person's visual acuity is specifiable by a fixed visual angle, independent of the distance. The information implicit in the

formula is also presented graphically, in four plots that apply to four different com- binations of length units for measuring stroke width and viewing distance. Also

presented are formulas and graphs for correcting the critical stroke width for

nonstandard contrast or background luminance. These correction formulas are based on

a body of data on visual acuity as a function of contrast and background luminance,

and a formula fitting the mid-ranges of the data, both published recently by other

researchers.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Acuity, visual; angle, visual; contrast; distance, viewing; letters; luminance;

resolution, eye; signs; Snellen chart; stroke width; visual acuity; visual angle.

13. AVAILABILITY

[]X] Unlimited

! I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I y] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

I I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

72

15. Price

$4.50

ii U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1983 O—380-997 (5104)
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from lime to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six limes a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$18; foreign $22.50. Single copy, $5.50 domestic; $6.90 foreign.

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society

(ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on N BS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's tech- nological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents. Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FlPS and NBSIRs—from

the National Technical Information Service . Springfield. VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Properly and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended.

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717(38 FR 1 23 1 5, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6

of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor: public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service , Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-215 THIRD CLASS BULK RATE