# An Effect of White Space on Traditional Chinese Text-Reading on Smartphones +
## 3 Results  
Results of analysis of variance indicated that the main effects of Page spacing (\(F\) (2, 242) = 3.49, \(p\) = 0.032), Line spacing (\(F\) (1, 242) = 5.68, \(p\) = 0.018) and Paragraph spacing were significant (\(F\) (1, 242) = 9.95, \(p\) = 0.002) on reading time. However, the interactions of those factors were not significant. Post hoc analysis was also conducted. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of reading time for each level of the independent variables. Multiple comparison methods using contrasts were also used to test the difference of means for each level. The result showed no significant difference of reading time between 0H page spacing (212.78 s) and 1/2 H page spacing (227.19 s), and between 0H page spacing (212.78 s) and1/3H page spacing (193.11 s). However, the reading time of 1/2H page spacing (227.19 s) was significantly longer than 1/3H page spacing (193.11 s). Additionally, the result also showed the reading time for line spacing with a 3-Font leading (223.62 s) was significantly longer than that with a 2-Font leading (198.43 s). Besides, the result also showed the reading time for page spacing with 1-L spacing (227.71 s) was significantly longer than that with 2-L spacing (194.35 s). The results of analysis of variance indicated that the effect of Page spacing was significant on ratings of ease (\(F\) (2, 242) = 9.861, \(p\) < 0.01), comfort (\(F\) (2, 242) = 11.514, \(p\) < 0.001), aesthetic appeal (\(F\) (2, 242) = 20.404, \(p\) < 0.001) and preference (\(F\) (2, 242) = 25.565, \(p\) < 0.001). Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of subjective rating scores for each level of Page spacing. Multiple comparison methods using contrasts were used to test the difference in treatment means. Figure 3 shows the line chart of subjective ratings for each level of Page spacing. On ratings of ease, the result showed the rating score of 0H page spacing (4.06) was the highest; 1/3H page spacing (3.80) the next; and 1/2 H page spacing (3.55) the least. It suggested that oversized page spacing would reduce subjective ease of reading. On comfort, the scores of 0H page spacing (4.15) was significantly higher than 1/3H page spacing (3.94), and both were higher than 1/2H page spacing (3.65). For aesthetic appeal, the score of 0H page spacing (3.92) was the highest; 1/3H page spacing (3.58) the next; and 1/2 H page spacing (3.24) the least. For preference, the score of 0H page spacing (3.90) was the highest; 1/3H page spacing (3.48) the next; and 1/2H page spacing (3.09) the least. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Levels** & \(n\) & **Mean** & **S.D.** & **Grouping** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Page spacing} & 0H & 96 & 212.78 & 117.07 & A & B \\  & 1/3H & 96 & 193.11 & 107.46 & A & \\  & 1/2H & 96 & 227.19 & 128.56 & & B \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Line spacing} & 2-F leading & 144 & 198.43 & 122.59 & A & \\  & 3-F leading & 144 & 223.62 & 113.14 & & B \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Paragraph spacing} & 1-L spacing & 144 & 227.71 & 130.34 & A & \\  & 2-L spacing & 144 & 194.35 & 102.95 & & B \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Different letters in group indicate significant differences at 0.05 levels.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Means and standard deviations of reading time (second) for levels of independent variables. Next, results of analysis of variance also indicated a significant effect of Line spacing on comfort ratings (\(F\) (1, 242) = 9.533, \(p\) = 0.002) and on aesthetic appeal (\(F\) (1, 242) = 4.694, \(p\) = 0.031). However, the effect was not significant on the other subjective ratings. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of both comfort and appeal rating scores for each level of Line Spacing. Multiple comparison methods using contrasts were used to test the difference of means for each level. Figure 4 shows the line chart of subjective ratings for each level of Line Spacing.