buffy said:

Succinct, and to the point.

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

buffy said:

What am I seeing here?

buffy said:

arrrrrghhhhhhhhh i’ve gone blind, i don’t see anything!!!!

Did you know that if you hit Enter, it’s the same as hitting the Submit button on here? Who knew? Hang on, that doesn’t usually happen. But it did then.

buffy said:

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

There was a site linked on these forums that did allow that.. I’m trying to remember where I bookmarked it.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

There was a site linked on these forums that did allow that.. I’m trying to remember where I bookmarked it.

I tried that. It didn’t work for that paper. But if you can get it to work, thanks. It’s called Sci-hub.

buffy said:

Did you know that if you hit Enter, it’s the same as hitting the Submit button on here? Who knew? Hang on, that doesn’t usually happen. But it did then.

Yes. It most likely was some accident between the chair and the keyboard.

JudgeMental said:

buffy said:

arrrrrghhhhhhhhh i’ve gone blind, i don’t see anything!!!!

That’s what I thought.

Gee, she knows how to scare a person.

buffy said:

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

Seems like it is already open access. You just need to click on the PDF link. They don’t support direct linking, though. I could download it and upload it to my own server but that might be immoral.

Just click on it.

buffy said:

Did you know that if you hit Enter, it’s the same as hitting the Submit button on here? Who knew? Hang on, that doesn’t usually happen. But it did then.

Yeah I had that issue yesterday…

dv said:

buffy said:

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

Seems like it is already open access. You just need to click on the PDF link. They don’t support direct linking, though. I could download it and upload it to my own server but that might be immoral.

Just click on it.|ExpireAbsolute;source|Journals;ttl|1492916981335;payload|mY8D3u1TCCsNvP5E421JYK6N6XICDamxByyYpaNzk7FKjTaa1Yz22MivkHZqjGP4kdS2v0J76WGAnHACH69s21Csk0OpQi3YbjEMdSoz2UhVybFqQxA7lKwSUlA502zQZr96TQRwhVlocEp/sJ586aVbcBFlltKNKo+tbuMfL73hiPqJliudqs17cHeLcLbV/CqjlP3IO0jGHlHQtJWcICDdAyGJMnpi6RlbEJaRheGeh5z5uvqz3FLHgPKVXJzd6ptL7tQvZLqELuKORbgq5IUKQH00dSQzbdN3nXLXXXg=;hash|FhUuV1Pgc8GxRCetGaJMMQ==

fixed?

buffy said:

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

Thanks, Buffy.

“Such standardization of the test task requires the use of letters of equal legibility, “

Well, that doesn’t happen.

The letter F is particularly difficult, as it can look like E and also a bit like P and T.

B and R can difficult to tell apart. Ditto C and G.

I’ve always wondered if it is easy to remember the chart in order to cheat on the test.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve always wondered if it is easy to remember the chart in order to cheat on the test.

I was in the ‘lopital the other day getting my hand stitched and there was a person of middle eastern nature who had been in an auto accident. They were testing his vision on the chart and the intern had to tell the visitor friend/rello. “no, you aren’t allowed to read it for him”.

Some links.

A video clip where Ian Bailey discusses the test.
http://www.precision-vision.com/behind-the-test-the-bailey-lovie-contrast-sensitivity-test/

Wikipedia’s version.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMAR_chart

There are reasons to prefer the old Snellen chart over the more recent Bailey-Lovie.

One is that Snellen is a serif font and Bailey-Lovey a sans-serif. Serif fonts were all originally designed for maximum readability. Sans-serif fonts are less legible.

A second is that the Bailey-Lovey font is exceptionally wide and therefore unfamiliar, never used for any purpose other than eye charts. Unfamiliar fonts are more difficult to read than familiar fonts.

Does the Bailey-Lovey font set include the letter G? I ask because capital G can be printed several different ways, which makes it ambiguous.

mollwollfumble said:

“Such standardization of the test task requires the use of letters of equal legibility, “

Well, that doesn’t happen.

The letter F is particularly difficult, as it can look like E and also a bit like P and T.

B and R can difficult to tell apart. Ditto C and G.

I presume you have read a bit further by now and found that Bailey Lovie charts are rather boring to those of us who have to listen to them being read out to us every day. The letters used are very carefully chosen and it’s quite a small set. There are no Fs, no Ps, no Ss, no Bs, no Rs, no Ws….for the reason you have pointed out. There are Os and Cs…because if you can see the gap in the C we know what you can see.

mollwollfumble said:

There are reasons to prefer the old Snellen chart over the more recent Bailey-Lovie.

One is that Snellen is a serif font and Bailey-Lovey a sans-serif. Serif fonts were all originally designed for maximum readability. Sans-serif fonts are less legible.

A second is that the Bailey-Lovey font is exceptionally wide and therefore unfamiliar, never used for any purpose other than eye charts. Unfamiliar fonts are more difficult to read than familiar fonts.

Does the Bailey-Lovey font set include the letter G? I ask because capital G can be printed several different ways, which makes it ambiguous.

No, G is not used.

dv said:

buffy said:

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

Seems like it is already open access. You just need to click on the PDF link. They don’t support direct linking, though. I could download it and upload it to my own server but that might be immoral.

Just click on it.

The PDF link is not available when I go there. It says across the top that I can buy the article. But the link is not clickable.

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

“Such standardization of the test task requires the use of letters of equal legibility, “

Well, that doesn’t happen.

The letter F is particularly difficult, as it can look like E and also a bit like P and T.

B and R can difficult to tell apart. Ditto C and G.

I presume you have read a bit further by now and found that Bailey Lovie charts are rather boring to those of us who have to listen to them being read out to us every day. The letters used are very carefully chosen and it’s quite a small set. There are no Fs, no Ps, no Ss, no Bs, no Rs, no Ws….for the reason you have pointed out. There are Os and Cs…because if you can see the gap in the C we know what you can see.

F, P and R appear in this Bailey-Lovey chart set.

buffy said:

dv said:

buffy said:

Whoops….

http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/1976/11000/New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6.aspx

For mollwollfumble so it seems like fun and not work.

If anyone can find an open access link to that paper, moll and I would be grateful.

Seems like it is already open access. You just need to click on the PDF link. They don’t support direct linking, though. I could download it and upload it to my own server but that might be immoral.

Just click on it.

The PDF link is not available when I go there. It says across the top that I can buy the article. But the link is not clickable.

Did yu try my post of just click on it|ExpireAbsolute;source|Journals;ttl|1492916981335;payload|mY8D3u1TCCsNvP5E421JYK6N6XICDamxByyYpaNzk7FKjTaa1Yz22MivkHZqjGP4kdS2v0J76WGAnHACH69s21Csk0OpQi3YbjEMdSoz2UhVybFqQxA7lKwSUlA502zQZr96TQRwhVlocEp/sJ586aVbcBFlltKNKo+tbuMfL73hiPqJliudqs17cHeLcLbV/CqjlP3IO0jGHlHQtJWcICDdAyGJMnpi6RlbEJaRheGeh5z5uvqz3FLHgPKVXJzd6ptL7tQvZLqELuKORbgq5IUKQH00dSQzbdN3nXLXXXg=;hash|FhUuV1Pgc8GxRCetGaJMMQ==

?

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

“Such standardization of the test task requires the use of letters of equal legibility, “

Well, that doesn’t happen.

The letter F is particularly difficult, as it can look like E and also a bit like P and T.

B and R can difficult to tell apart. Ditto C and G.

I presume you have read a bit further by now and found that Bailey Lovie charts are rather boring to those of us who have to listen to them being read out to us every day. The letters used are very carefully chosen and it’s quite a small set. There are no Fs, no Ps, no Ss, no Bs, no Rs, no Ws….for the reason you have pointed out. There are Os and Cs…because if you can see the gap in the C we know what you can see.

F, P and R appear in this Bailey-Lovey chart set.

Oops. sorry, yes, you are right. I’ve been trying to get a copy of the original paper, because it very clearly describes how the letters were chosen. And all the stuff about them being the same size, the same height, width etc, gaps matching the letter sizes, a logarithmic progression down the chart, the same number of letters at each size (a major problem with Snellen charts) and the gaps between lines being the size of the line above (or below, I can’t remember. It’s nearly 40 years since I did the exam requiring me to know everything about vision charts)

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

dv said:

Seems like it is already open access. You just need to click on the PDF link. They don’t support direct linking, though. I could download it and upload it to my own server but that might be immoral.

Just click on it.

yes…and lots of nothing happens.

The PDF link is not available when I go there. It says across the top that I can buy the article. But the link is not clickable.

Did yu try my post of just click on it|ExpireAbsolute;source|Journals;ttl|1492916981335;payload|mY8D3u1TCCsNvP5E421JYK6N6XICDamxByyYpaNzk7FKjTaa1Yz22MivkHZqjGP4kdS2v0J76WGAnHACH69s21Csk0OpQi3YbjEMdSoz2UhVybFqQxA7lKwSUlA502zQZr96TQRwhVlocEp/sJ586aVbcBFlltKNKo+tbuMfL73hiPqJliudqs17cHeLcLbV/CqjlP3IO0jGHlHQtJWcICDdAyGJMnpi6RlbEJaRheGeh5z5uvqz3FLHgPKVXJzd6ptL7tQvZLqELuKORbgq5IUKQH00dSQzbdN3nXLXXXg=;hash|FhUuV1Pgc8GxRCetGaJMMQ==

?

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

yes…and lots of nothing happens.

The PDF link is not available when I go there. It says across the top that I can buy the article. But the link is not clickable.

Did yu try my post of just click on it|ExpireAbsolute;source|Journals;ttl|1492916981335;payload|mY8D3u1TCCsNvP5E421JYK6N6XICDamxByyYpaNzk7FKjTaa1Yz22MivkHZqjGP4kdS2v0J76WGAnHACH69s21Csk0OpQi3YbjEMdSoz2UhVybFqQxA7lKwSUlA502zQZr96TQRwhVlocEp/sJ586aVbcBFlltKNKo+tbuMfL73hiPqJliudqs17cHeLcLbV/CqjlP3IO0jGHlHQtJWcICDdAyGJMnpi6RlbEJaRheGeh5z5uvqz3FLHgPKVXJzd6ptL7tQvZLqELuKORbgq5IUKQH00dSQzbdN3nXLXXXg=;hash|FhUuV1Pgc8GxRCetGaJMMQ==

?

Well that is the link I just clicked on and the file instantly downloaded. You want me to email it to you?

No, but I’d like to know if it works for anyone else.

buffy said:

No, but I’d like to know if it works for anyone else.

for at least dv and me. so far to my recollection of events thus far in this issue.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

No, but I’d like to know if it works for anyone else.

for at least dv and me. so far to my recollection of events thus far in this issue.

mmaybe mollwoll too.

buffy said:

No, but I’d like to know if it works for anyone else.

Not here, I get the abstract.

sibeen said:

buffy said:

No, but I’d like to know if it works for anyone else.

Not here, I get the abstract.

Look to the right, under article tools. You will get what they offer. PDF 3.98 mb

I haven’t read it but if the mb mean anything it should be a little better than an extract?

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

buffy said:

No, but I’d like to know if it works for anyone else.

Not here, I get the abstract.

Look to the right, under article tools. You will get what they offer. PDF 3.98 mb

I haven’t read it but if the mb mean anything it should be a little better than an extract?

Yes, a non clickable pdf link

This might help a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMAR_chart#cite_ref-Bailey_IL_1976_1-1

It’s not a bad mini summary.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

Not here, I get the abstract.

Look to the right, under article tools. You will get what they offer. PDF 3.98 mb

I haven’t read it but if the mb mean anything it should be a little better than an extract?

Yes, a non clickable pdf link

This might help a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMAR_chart#cite_ref-Bailey_IL_1976_1-1

It’s not a bad mini summary.

It downloaded here.. New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6(1)

six pages. Not just an extract.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

Not here, I get the abstract.

Look to the right, under article tools. You will get what they offer. PDF 3.98 mb

I haven’t read it but if the mb mean anything it should be a little better than an extract?

Yes, a non clickable pdf link

This might help a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMAR_chart#cite_ref-Bailey_IL_1976_1-1

It’s not a bad mini summary.

non-clickable pdf link here too.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Look to the right, under article tools. You will get what they offer. PDF 3.98 mb

I haven’t read it but if the mb mean anything it should be a little better than an extract?

Yes, a non clickable pdf link

This might help a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMAR_chart#cite_ref-Bailey_IL_1976_1-1

It’s not a bad mini summary.

It downloaded here.. New_Design_Principles_for_Visual_Acuity_Letter.6(1)

six pages. Not just an extract.

Hmm, no. It is only an abstract.

JudgeMental said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Look to the right, under article tools. You will get what they offer. PDF 3.98 mb

I haven’t read it but if the mb mean anything it should be a little better than an extract?

Yes, a non clickable pdf link

This might help a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMAR_chart#cite_ref-Bailey_IL_1976_1-1

It’s not a bad mini summary.

non-clickable pdf link here too.

That would appear to be a browser cache or settings prob. My browser is fully hacked against intrusions or ads or scripty stuff.

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

buffy said:

Yes, a non clickable pdf link

This might help a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogMAR_chart#cite_ref-Bailey_IL_1976_1-1

It’s not a bad mini summary.

non-clickable pdf link here too.

That would appear to be a browser cache or settings prob.

no. doesn’t work in either opera or edge. you have to pay for the article. if you can access it c&p it here.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913001259

Is this any good?

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

non-clickable pdf link here too.

That would appear to be a browser cache or settings prob.

no. doesn’t work in either opera or edge. you have to pay for the article. if you can access it c&p it here.

THe non-clickable .pdf has the first word after the titles.. Abstract. it is a 4 mb file with six pages. but it isn’t the ‘full article’ so to speak. I’ve already c&p the link but as it isn’t clickable..








Hmm

Peak Warming Man said:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913001259

Is this any good?

Thank you PWM. Usually you have to pay at Science Direct. Well done.

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913001259

Is this any good?

Thank you PWM. Usually you have to pay at Science Direct. Well done.

don’t encourage him!

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

That would appear to be a browser cache or settings prob.

no. doesn’t work in either opera or edge. you have to pay for the article. if you can access it c&p it here.

THe non-clickable .pdf has the first word after the titles.. Abstract. it is a 4 mb file with six pages. but it isn’t the ‘full article’ so to speak. I’ve already c&p the link but as it isn’t clickable..








Hmm

The paper appears to be read only.

The holiday forum or was it sssf? used to have an ftp shared folder.. I just don’t remember the links..

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913001259

Is this any good?

Thank you PWM. Usually you have to pay at Science Direct. Well done.

dv did say it was open source.

JudgeMental said:

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913001259

Is this any good?

Thank you PWM. Usually you have to pay at Science Direct. Well done.

don’t encourage him!

a nod and a wink will do.

It’s alright Judge, he hasn’t found exactly the paper I was trying to link to, but it’s an excellent one on the same topic by the same authors.

I think Jan is retired now. I had lunch with her a couple of years ago at the Hobart conference. I also recall sitting next to her at a lecture in Melbourne quite a few years ago where she was not happy with the talk. The body language said a lot. I was not happy with it either but we didn’t need to say anything – others pulled it to bits in the question time.

The original paper is not open access and only the abstract is available. If you have a link to the whole paper, please provide it.

buffy said:

The original paper is not open access and only the abstract is available. If you have a link to the whole paper, please provide it.

to be clear.. I have told you that I only have the extract which is what is under that non-clickable link.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

The original paper is not open access and only the abstract is available. If you have a link to the whole paper, please provide it.

to be clear.. I have told you that I only have the extract which is what is under that non-clickable link.

No, the abstract is that bit beside the link. The link, which you have to pay before you can click, is the whole paper.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

The original paper is not open access and only the abstract is available. If you have a link to the whole paper, please provide it.

to be clear.. I have told you that I only have the extract which is what is under that non-clickable link.

No, the abstract is that bit beside the link. The link, which you have to pay before you can click, is the whole paper.

is it? OK well will anyone who knows my email please contact me. ?

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

to be clear.. I have told you that I only have the extract which is what is under that non-clickable link.

No, the abstract is that bit beside the link. The link, which you have to pay before you can click, is the whole paper.

is it? OK well will anyone who knows my email please contact me. ?

What I am trying to say is that the abstract appearing beside the link is only the first paragraph of a six page abstract of what should be a far bigger file. But if you want this much, I have it.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

No, the abstract is that bit beside the link. The link, which you have to pay before you can click, is the whole paper.

is it? OK well will anyone who knows my email please contact me. ?

What I am trying to say is that the abstract appearing beside the link is only the first paragraph of a six page abstract of what should be a far bigger file. But if you want this much, I have it.

you still at acianthus?

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

is it? OK well will anyone who knows my email please contact me. ?

What I am trying to say is that the abstract appearing beside the link is only the first paragraph of a six page abstract of what should be a far bigger file. But if you want this much, I have it.

you still at acianthus?

if you have an answer, put it in chat.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

No, but I’d like to know if it works for anyone else.

for at least dv and me. so far to my recollection of events thus far in this issue.

Didn’t work for me.

buffy said:

Peak Warming Man said:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913001259

Is this any good?

Thank you PWM. Usually you have to pay at Science Direct. Well done.

Thanks from me too, that works.

It’s a wonder that anybody could read that paper without bursting out laughing. Parts of it are so ridiculous. Eg.

“Their narrower 4-unit profile meant that charts did not need to be so wide.”

The old Snellen chart is a heck of a lot narrower than the newly proposed Bailey Lovie vision charts. The Snellen chart only has to be wide enough to fit a single narrow font letter at largest size, more letters only at smaller sizes. The Bailey Lovie chart has to be wide enough to fit five wider 4-unit profiles with big gap between letters at largest size, so is not only a much wider chart but also has smaller largest size letters. So Snellen gives a better reading for the poorest vision, not worse.

The Snellen chart is more standardised not less.

The Bailiy-Lovey font is not a familiar one.

In summary, all that is said in the paper in Section 2.1 is shockingly wrong.

> 0.1 log-unit sequence convenient.

Not as convenient as the Snellen sequence. A 0.1 log sequence actually gives acuities of 6/6, 6/7.55355, 6/9.50936, etc.

> For visual acuities poorer than 20/200 (6/60), closer viewing distances were to be used.

Another disadvantage of the Bailey Lovie version. Closer distances are needed more often.

> Rows of optotypes

Of those, the 1968 British is by far the best, but not the one selected. Table should also have included the non-log fonts such as Snellen’s, given that ‘log’ and ‘font’ are completely independent properties.

It’s a real wonder that anyone took the Bailey-Love chart seriously.

Here is something that might help. An outline of various chart types.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0ahUKEwjGu8-Ln7rTAhVFwLwKHalxA4c4ChAWCCAwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nist.gov%2Fdocument-12930&usg=AFQjCNFCh-TeufRsbBUPGPoFL3HF-F4e4A&cad=rja

Hang on….this one is a better explanation.

http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2124911

OK, I’ve been far too negative about this. Bailey Lovie is good.

In particular, I now understand how the different acuity measures work.

mollwollfumble said:

OK, I’ve been far too negative about this. Bailey Lovie is good.

In particular, I now understand how the different acuity measures work.

I understand it because I work with it. I don’t expect everyone else to understand the underlying stuff. Many researchers don’t.

But it was good to go down this track – it reminded me to put a bit into our Method about the consulting room configuration and the types of charts used over the years.

did you get it in the end?

If not I can request the article through uni… it will take a few days… but it can be done

also, the article is from 1976 so ‘new’ is ambiguous

Thanks Arts, I have access myself through our College. It was for moll, because we have been discussing visual acuity with our research. But this is a side shoot, for interest’s sake thing. So the one that PWM found and the other ones I linked that are open access do the job.