# An Effect of White Space on Traditional Chinese Text-Reading on Smartphones +
## 3 Results
On comfort ratings, the result indicated that the scores of line spacing with a 3-F leading (4.04) was significantly higher than that a 2-F leading (3.78). On aesthetic appeal, the result showed the appealing scores for line spacing with a 3-F leading (3.67) was significantly higher than that a 2-F leading (3.49). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dep. Variable** & **Page Spacing** & \(n\) & **Mean** & **S.D.** & **Grouping** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ease} & 0H & 96 & 4.06 & 0.86 & A \\  & 1/3H & 96 & 3.80 & 0.99 & B \\  & 1/2H & 96 & 3.55 & 1.07 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Comfort} & 0H & 96 & 4.15 & 0.81 & A \\  & 1/3H & 96 & 3.94 & 1.00 & B \\  & 1/2H & 96 & 3.65 & 1.13 & C \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Aesthetic appeal} & 0H & 96 & 3.92 & 0.74 & A \\  & 1/3H & 96 & 3.58 & 0.87 & B \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Preference} & 1/2H & 96 & 3.24 & 1.11 & C \\  & 0H & 96 & 3.90 & 0.75 & A \\ \cline{1-1}  & 1/3H & 96 & 3.48 & 0.87 & B \\ \cline{1-1}  & 1/2H & 96 & 3.09 & 1.18 & C \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Different letters in group indicate significant differences at 0.05 levels.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Means and standard deviations of subjective ratings for each level of Page spacing. Figure 3: A line chart demonstrating the subjective ratings of ease, comfort, aesthetic appeal, and preference for Page spacing. Finally, the results showed no Paragraph spacing effect on the four subjective ratings: ease, comfort, aesthetic appeal and preference. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations of rating scores for each level of Paragraph spacing. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dep. Variable** & **Paragraph Spacing** & \(n\) & **Mean** & **S.D.** & **Duncan** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Ease} & I-L spacing & 144 & 3.78 & 1.05 & A \\  & 2-L spacing & 144 & 3.83 & 0.95 & A \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Comfort} & I-L spacing & 144 & 3.90 & 1.03 & A \\  & 2-L spacing & 144 & 3.92 & 0.99 & A \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Aesthetic appeal} & I-L spacing & 144 & 3.55 & 0.94 & A \\  & 2-L spacing & 144 & 3.61 & 0.98 & A \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Preference} & I-L spacing & 144 & 3.47 & 0.98 & A \\  & 2-L spacing & 144 & 3.51 & 1.02 & A \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Different letters in group indicate significant differences at 0.05 levels.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Means and standard deviations of subjective ratings for each level of paragraph spacing. Figure 4: A line chart shows the subjective ratings of comfort and aesthetic appeal for Line spacing. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dep. Variable** & **Line Spacing** & \(n\) & **Mean** & **S.D.** & **Duncan** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Ease} & 2-F leading & 144 & 3.74 & 0.98 & A \\  & 3-F leading & 144 & 3.87 & 1.00 & A \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Comfort} & 2-F leading & 144 & 3.78 & 1.05 & A \\  & 3-F leading & 144 & 4.04 & 0.95 & B \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Aesthetic appeal} & 2-F leading & 144 & 3.49 & 0.99 & A \\  & 3-F leading & 144 & 3.67 & 0.91 & B \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Preference} & 2-F leading & 144 & 3.42 & 1.01 & A \\  & 3-F leading & 144 & 3.56 & 0.98 & A \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Different letters in group indicate significant differences at 0.05 levels.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Means and standard deviations of subjective comfort and aesthetic appeal for each level of Line spacing.