C L I N I C A L A N D E X P E R I M E N T A L

OPTOMETRY

VIEWPOINT

From visual performance to visual ergonomics:

a personal historic view

Clin Exp Optom 2009; 92: 2: 126–132 DOI:10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00333.x

Johannes J Vos During the author’s active time in vision research a change in attitude took place from
Emeritus TNO Human Factors ‘visual performance’ as a criterion to justify higher light levels, to ‘visual ergonomics’ as
Soesterberg, The Netherlands a more comprehensive approach to improve visual work conditions. Some personal
E-mail: j.j.vos@wanadoo.nl memories of this transition period may serve as a historic framework.

Submitted: 28 July 2008

Revised: 15 August 2008
Accepted for publication: 21 August 2008

As the proverb says, it can be so dark that
one is not able to see one’s hand in front
of one’s face. Since times immemorial the
evident solution was to provide more
light: light chases darkness away and
renders hands visible. Actually, the
process of making things visible is quite a
bit more complex. Light is needed, of
course, but it does not suffice. It is also
necessary that the hand has other proper-
ties, like contrast and perhaps less
obvious, that the hand moves or rather
that the image of the hand moves with
respect to the retina. We all know that
waving one’s hand makes for better visibil-
ity, but the reverse is true even more than
we often realise. If we manage to com-
pletely stabilise the retinal image, not only
by immobilising our hand but also by
stopping the natural ocular tremor, the
hand just fades away and then, surpris-
ingly the hand and the background
gradually become pitch dark.1 We do not
see our hand because it is bright but it is
bright because we can see our hand.
Of course, this may seem to be a rather
irrelevant introduction to my subject. Our
far forefathers did not bother about such
scientific highbrow ideas. They just added
light and saw that it worked. Nevertheless,
this introduction does serve a purpose and
illustrates that better vision is more than a
matter of adding light. This is the real
theme of my paper. For the moment, I will
stick to the simple process of adding light
to see better. For millennia, the only means
to add light was by torches and later
candles. It was only in the second half
of the 19th Century that the in-
vention of gaslight brought significant
progress. Thereafter, things changed
rapidly. The Thorium gas mantle multi-
plied the light yield, then came the electric
incandescent lamp, followed by the devel-
opment of all kinds of fluorescent tubes
and high pressure discharge lamps, and
lately the highly economic light emitting
diode (LED) lamps. The progress made is
clear from the steady growth of light yield
(in lm/W), resulting in an almost equally
steady growth of recommended ambient
indoor light levels2 (Figure 1).
As a result, we now use marginally more
power for lighting our desk than our
great-grandparents, to obtain far better
lighting. Moreover, the figure may serve to
illustrate that this steady progress has
more or less come to an end. White light
with acceptable colour rendering cannot
exceed some 300 lm/W as higher levels
can be attained only at the cost of spectral
bandwidth (683 lm/W being the absolute
maximum for 555 nm monochromatic
light), and recommending ambient office
light levels over 500 lux has now become
environmentally unacceptable because
it entails unnecessary consumption
of energy. So the dotted extension in
Figure 1 may be expected only from a

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 92.2 March 2009 © 2009 The Author
126 Journal compilation © 2009 Optometrists Association Australia

1000
Recommended office illuminance, lux
100
1910 carbon filaments
10
1 3
Source efficacy, Im/circuit W
Figure 1. Growth of luminance recommendations for offices
and light source efficacy in the past century. Data from Col-
lins,2 replotted and complemented with the expected course
towards a dead end where the source efficiency reaches its
theoretical maximum and where a further increase in office
luminance is considered environmentally unacceptable.
further heat loss reduction in the electric
circuit.
Lighting as a discipline
With the development of so many more
technically realisable possibilities to attain
better lighting, it is understandable that
lighting became a speciality around the
turn of the 19th to the 20th Century. In
1900, the International Committee of Pho-
tometry (CIP) was founded which became
the present International Committee on
Illumination (CIE) in 1913.3 Research fol-
lowed the emergence of illuminating engi-
neering as a specialist discipline.
Around the First World War, Luckiesh,4
later joint by Moss, started systematic
investigations on the influence of light
level, size and contrast on visibility,
defined as the factor by which the men-
tioned parameters had to be reduced to
reach threshold. The Luckiesh and Moss
visibility meter,4 in which contrast was
used as the relevant parameter, became a
standard instrument in lighting research.
That they opted for contrast as the
experimental variable was mainly due to
Weston,5 who introduced the term ‘visual
© 2009 The Author
Journal compilation © 2009 Optometrists Association Australia
expected dead end
1977
Hg high pressure
lamps
1950 fluorescent lamps
Relative task performance
1930 tungsten filament
10 30 100 300
Figure 2. Task performance results in terms of both speed
and accuracy, obtained by Weston5 in an experiment that
involved time taken and errors made in marking Landolt ring
orientations, as a function of visibility level in terms of supra-
threshold contrast
performance’. This measure combined
speed and accuracy to specify how well
typical visual tasks like detection, recogni-
tion or reading could be accomplished
(Figure 2).
To put the term visual performance in a
proper historical perspective, it may be
remarked that it fits well with the emphasis
on efficiency in the first half of the 20th
Century, which was associated with the
introduction of the assembly line to
enhance industrial productivity. In this
respect, we may refer to the hilarious
booklet Cheaper by the Dozen by children of
one of the protagonists of human indus-
trial performance, FB Gilbreth6 and to the
somewhat less hilarious aspects of Charlie
Chaplin’s famous movie Modern Times.
Visual performance
In the post Second World War years,
Richard Blackwell took over the baton
from Weston and expanded Weston’s line
of thinking to a gigantic comprehensive
system of visual task evaluation. It was at
my first congress abroad that I heard and
saw Blackwell, a great stage performer,
unfolding his grand ideas at the 1959 CIE
From visual performance to visual ergonomics Vos
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 50
Visibility level
congress in Brussels.7 I could not know
then that eight years later I would get
involved as a member of the CIE Visual
Performance Committee with Blackwell as
chairman. First, I was charmed by his
grand view and his drive to make his
system a cornerstone for illuminating
engineering. The CIE Report 19/18 for-
mulating this system in general terms had
the charm of simplicity in describing visual
performance as a function of light level,
contrast and target size (Figure 3).
In its further elaboration, published
10 years later in CIE Report 19/2,9 it got
stuck in a steadily increasing number of
parameters (Figure 4) to squeeze visual
performance into the straitjacket of the
system. Essentially the problems were due
to the fact that with the already high levels
of indoor ambient luminance, the law of
diminishing returns made visual perfor-
mance relatively sensitive to other, ‘dis-
turbing’ influences, such as field size or
work stress, so that the light level was no
longer the main determinant of work
performance.
Moreover, its implicit message that
visual performance could always be
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 92.2 March 2009
127
From visual performance to visual ergonomics Vos

150

X
2.0 X
1

Number of parameters
0.5 4
10
60 100
‘analytic’
Relative contrast sensitivity

X
1.0
model
0.6 d (minutes) X
0.6
60
0.5 X ‘unified’
0.4 10 ‘recommended’ framework
50 method
X

0.3 4
‘implementation’
X X
1 or smaller X
0.2 ‘evaluation’ ‘unified’
framework
0
0.1 1st 2nd final 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th final
1 2 4 10 20 40 100 200 400 1000 2000 4000 10000
2
Reference luminance (cd/m ) Report 19 Report 19/2

Figure 3. Relative contrast sensitivity as a function of lumi- Figure 4. The number of parameters in the successive stages
nance for various target sizes for subjects in the 20 to 30 years of what would finally become the CIE Analytic model for
age bracket. Example of the approach followed in the CIE describing the influence of lighting parameters on visual
Report 19/2.9 performance10

improved by adding more light petered at tude that may be described as a switch Visual ergonomics
the steadily increasing public awareness from technology push to market pull.
that energy is not an inexhaustible In this view, lighting is only one aspect,
resource. embedded in a wider scheme in which we
It became clear that Blackwell’s road attribute a key role to the optometrist who Illuminating Vision
and mine parted. Twenty years after Black- combines optometric care with an aca- engineering research
well had unfolded his ideas at the 1959 demic knowledge of visual functioning at
Brussels CIE meeting, in a similar setting work and in everyday life. Task
at the 1979 Kyoto CIE meeting, we11 optimising
declared our disbelief in the formal visual
VISUAL ERGONOMICS
performance structure that Blackwell had
Optometry Ergonomics
just presented in its final form.12 Not only Visual ergonomics is just a term but para-
did we judge the system too complex to be phrasing Goethe’s famous saying,14 this
useful in practice and actually suggesting term may have been just the word needed
unrealistic accuracy but we had gradually to formulate a completely different ap-
come to the conclusion that Blackwell’s proach to the visibility problem. Once
concentration on only lighting parameters having the term, the direction of thinking Figure 5. Introduction of visual ergonom-
was ill-conceived, both in principle and in follows suit. ics as a joint venture of illuminating engi-
practice. We presented an alternative Ergonomics is not a branch of science. neering, vision research, optometry and
scheme (Figure 5), in which we formally It is rather an attitude, a perspective from ergonomics10
introduced the concept of visual ergo- which to consider problems from the view-
nomics.a The basis of this concept was a point of human capabilities, rather than
joint product of illuminating engineering from technical feasibilities. ‘Visual ergo-
and optometric care with an ergonomic nomics’ is the attitude to consider prob-
perspective, together with a change in atti- lems from the viewpoint of human visual Visual tests
capabilities. Can he see, recognise and To judge visual capabilities, we have to use
interpret his visual task? Does the visual the set of visual tests developed over the
a. We introduced this term in our institute in
1976 and presented the concept at the 1977 input adequately steer his reactions? Is the last one and a half centuries. Here, I have
Stockholm Ergophthalmology meeting.13 visual input possibly hazardous? to signal a remarkable shift in attitude with

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 92.2 March 2009 © 2009 The Author
128 Journal compilation © 2009 Optometrists Association Australia
 From visual performance to visual ergonomics Vos

respect to sight testing, more or less con-

current with the shift from visual perfor-
mance to visual ergonomics. Sight testing,
as a discipline, started with Snellen’s intro-
duction of visual acuity, in 1862.15 Long
before that time the capability to read text
was used extensively as a check on the
adequacy of corrective glasses but Snellen
introduced a system that provided neat
quantification, the ‘Snellen acuity’. Subse-
quently, other sight tests followed: for
colour vision defects, contrast sensitivity,
the course and final level of dark adapta-
tion and visual field. Silently, the develop-
ment of this steadily extending gamut of
sight tests resulted in a change in purpose.
Snellen’s introduction of visual acuity was
first of all used and intended as a quanti-
tative help to restore ‘normal’ vision by
means of corrective lenses, however,
testing for colour vision deficiency could
not claim to aid restoration of visual
performance. The only possible use of
the well-known pseudo-isochromatic test
booklets was to fail subjects for certain
critical jobs. When I entered the labour
market in 1953, application for a job inevi-
tably included a medical examination
including relevant sight characteristics.
For most jobs normal VA sufficed but for
railway workers and other industries that
required recognition of coloured signal
lights, stringent colour vision require-
ments were formulated. Sight testing had
developed—even degenerated one might
say—into a fitness for job screening.
The emphasis on sight testing is not
always well considered. Let us take a look at
testing one’s aptitude for driving. Accident
statistics do not confirm a dominant role of
sight deficiencies16 and if we could reliably
test for moodiness and aggressiveness, it
would probably be a more promising
approach to better traffic safety. That sight
testing was accepted seems to have been
determined more by its face validity, its
ease of application and well-established
quantification than by its proven relevance.
Non-discrimination
Somewhere halfway through the 20th
Century, non-discrimination became the
key word: first non-discrimination against
race but gradually against all sorts of
Figure 6. The Dutch Queen Juliana trying – arms stretched! –
a prototype of a near vision tester while visiting our institute
‘handicap’, including visual disabilities. If
someone has bad sight, the possibility of
using visual aids such as better lighting,
magnifiers, auditory clues, et cetera ought
to be tried. Sight screening more or less
returned to its original function, away
from being used as a barrier to access on
the labour market, back to its function
to provide a measure for the needs to
provide ergonomic solutions. This change
in attitude could occur only following the
development of visual ergonomics and
one can say that the two trends, the switch
from sight testing as a barrier to sight
testing as a help, and the change in atti-
tude with respect to job discrimination,
worked well together. A very important
offshoot of this change in attitude is the
development of low vision as a separate
discipline. Low vision might be regarded
as visual ergonomics geared to the visually
handicapped.
Near vision
In this context one matter should receive
our special interest and that is the emer-
gence of sustained near work as a pre-
dominant feature of work, especially since
the advent of the ubiquitous desk-top
computer. ‘Near acuity’ has become an
important parameter of vision but the
usual means for assessing near vision
are strangely informal and often badly
quantified.
In the 1980s, we came upon this
problem in an interesting way. The task of
inspecting jet rotor blades for small metal
defects required workers with long-
standing records of reliability and respon-
sibility. Typically, that meant using older,
often presbyopic workers. As we all know,
presbyopia is often under-corrected, if
only due to a lag in optometric care.
People consult an optometrist when they
have repeatedly dialled the wrong number
or misread the bus schedule—not exactly
adequate criteria for fitness as jet rotor
inspectors. Some people seldom have to
dial or check schedules (Figure 6) and
therefore, may be easy victims to presby-
opic problems.
The problems with recruiting inspectors
might have been solved by providing them
with good do-it-yourself near-vision screen-
ers but we found that near vision testing
was in a state of unbelievable underdevel-
opment. Tests did not provide sufficient
reach, accuracy or quantification for our
purpose and seemed to be designed
mainly to reassure clients that they could
read even the lowest line, rather than to
determine their near acuity. Moreover,
the various scales really excelled in chaos.
As a result we developed the near vision

© 2009 The Author Clinical and Experimental Optometry 92.2 March 2009
Journal compilation © 2009 Optometrists Association Australia 129
From visual performance to visual ergonomics Vos

30 rather than a science. With that adage in

mind, a photograph (Figure 8) taken at
2.75
one of the minor exit roads of the Utrecht
2.5 University campus hardly needs further
Visual acuity required at 40 cm reading distance

Attainable legibility distance (m) with VA = 1.5

0.25
explanation.
2.25
Another example concerns visual guid-
2.0 0.3 ance in traffic. Almost daily experiences
show us that painting lines on the road
1.75 surface and arranging street lanterns
1.5 0.4
along the road inform drivers about the
expected course of the road. Particularly
1.25 0.5 annoying and often even dangerous can
be the situation of unexpected detours,
1.0 0.6
when the line and light patterns are not
0.75 0.8 adapted to the changed situation. Here
1.0 too, the road manager is expected to take
0.5
1.5 the visual-ergonomic view.
2.0
0.25 3.0 A very special and rather interesting
6.0 example comes from work carried out in
0 x/o E numerals text C numerals C E text
my former institute,21 which relates to
visual guidance of push-boats into locks.
Rosebaum Laméris Priegel Topcon Oculus Nieden Traditionally, inland waterway transport in
Europe was always done by tugboat. These
Figure 7. A comparison between an arbitrary sample of current commercial Europe near long barge trains had to enter locks at a
vision tests17 with the ‘Priegel test’,2 the here-mentioned do-it-yourself near vision very low speed. Around 1960, push-boat
screener. The lower two lines indicate the test names and the optotypes used. The vertical transport came into fashion and contrary
scales indicate the near acuity notations, the J-notation being short for ‘Jaeger’, a pre- to the towing boat, the pushing boat had
sumed generally accepted standard. Values at the same height indicate equal legibility. to keep speed to stay manoeuvrable. The
Note the way the Priegel test far outreaches the customary range of near vision tests. locks had an asymmetric entrance due to
the narrowing of the two-way waterway
(Figure 9). As a result, the danger of crash-
ing into the concrete lock walls was con-
siderable, particularly at night, as captains,
tester shown in Figure 6. This is not the boundaries. The first example concerns orienting on the lock lanterns, tended to
place to discuss in detail the problems the design of traffic lights. These have keep the bisector course. This was a diffi-
and merits of this so-called Priegel test.b been the subject of many visual ergonomic cult situation, as training captains to not
Suffice to say that we think we have studies to determine the best colours to follow their natural inclination turned out
managed to adequately solve the pro- use for drivers with both normal and to be impossible. The solution was to mis-
blems. First, we developed a proper abnormal colour vision, to establish the guide them by posting the lanterns in such
definition of near vision using a 1/critical intensity needed for the signals to be a non-equidistant way that the apparent
gap size (in mm-1) criterion at an attain- quickly and reliably seen and to ensure bisector coincided with the navigationally
able working distance in stead of the phantom effects due to retro-reflected optimal course for safe sailing into the
usual 1/critical gap angle (in arcmin-1) at sunlight do not make the signal ineffec- lock. This visual ergonomic solution was a
an arbitrary, fixed working distance.17 tive. The practical application of the infor- cheap solution to, literally, a dead lock
Figure 7 shows a comparison of a repre- mation from these studies is contained in situation.
sentative sample of commercial near the respective CIE Reports.18,19 Recently in One special area of ergonomics, so far
vision tests with the Priegel test. this journal,20 I examined the problem of unmentioned, is visual ergonomics in the
how to reduce glare from the surrounding workplace, which is mainly ergonomics in
Examples sky using background shields in the case of the modern computer-based office. This
A few examples may illustrate this visual traffic lights and by transition zones in the expression comes from perhaps the only
ergonomics approach; some self-evident case of tunnel entrances. Even when all book that uses the term visual ergonomics
but some more far-fetched to explore its these aspects of visual science have been in the title.22 The back cover of this
taken into account, we should remember book self-proclaims that it ‘is destined to
b. The Dutch word ‘priegel’ means ‘very fine’. that ergonomics is primarily an attitude, become the classic introductory guide to

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 92.2 March 2009 © 2009 The Author
130 Journal compilation © 2009 Optometrists Association Australia
 From visual performance to visual ergonomics Vos

Cole and never have managed to steer

through present day virtual channels
without the benevolent help of the edito-
rial staff of this journal, for which I extend
my sincere thanks.

REFERENCES
1. Gerrits HJM, De Haan B, Vendrik AJH.
Experiments with stabilized images. Rela-
tions between the observations and neural
data. Vision Res 1966; 6: 427–440.
2. Collins JB. The illuminating engineer in a
changing world. Lighting Res Technol 1977;
9: 1–10.
3. Walsh JWTh. History of the International
Figure 8. Even excellent design does not always guarantee Commission on Illumination. Publication
good visibility. The red traffic light complies with the CIE CIE No.19, 1963.
specifications but comes into sight only at the last moment. 4. Luckiesh M. Light, Vision and Seeing, 3rd
printing. New York: Van Nostrand
Company, 1945.
5. Weston HC. The Relation between Illumi-
nation and Industrial Efficiency, Part 2: The
Effect of Brightness Contrast. Great Britain
Actual, optimally (mis) guiding location lanterns Medical Research Council, Industrial
Research Board, Report No. 87, 1945
(Cited by Blackwell7).
virtual location lanterns 6. Gilbreth F, Gilbreth CE. Cheaper by the
Dozen, 1946; Mass Market paperback, 2003.
wanted entrance trajectory 7. Blackwell HR. A proposed general method
push boat for specifying the quantity of interior
illumination from performance criteria.
Total Proc. 14th CIE session, Brussels, 1959, 217–
exit trajectory
canal 227.
width
8. CIE. Recommended method for evaluating
visual performance aspects of lighting. Pub-
Locks Lock doors lication No. 19/1 (TC-3.1) CIE, Paris, 1972.
9. CIE. An Analytic Model for Describing the
Influence of Lighting Parameters upon
Figure 9. Safe push boat manoeuvring into the Volkerak locks in the Rotterdam-Antwerp Visual Performance. Vols. I and II. Publica-
waterway at night is achieved by intentionally misguiding the captains by posting the lock tion CIE No 19/2, 1981.
10. Vos JJ. Is report CIE 19/2 a useful instru-
lanterns non-equidistantly (schematic drawing) ment for the foundation of interior light-
ing? Position paper for the Round Table
Conference ‘The integration of visual per-
formance criteria into the illumination
design process’, Ottawa, January 25–27,
1982. Public Works Canada Publ. pp 52–64.
visual ergonomics’. Although I am in The given examples show that visual 11. Padmos P, Vos JJ. The Validity of Interior
favour of the visual ergonomics approach, ergonomics is no-one’s particular domain Light Level Recommendations: Some
I hope this destination is not achieved, but rather an attitude of mind that can be Neglected Aspects. Proc. 19th session CIE
as it would broaden visual ergonomics promoted by knowledge of laws of vision Kyoto, 1979: 37–45. Publication No.50
beyond its real domain to include repeti- obtained in psychological or optometric (1980) Bureau Central de la CIE, Paris Pub-
lications.
tive strain injury, neck and backache, research, however, it should be handled 12. Blackwell HR. Quadrennial report Visual
exposure to radiofrequencies and other first by common sense. Performance Committee TC 3.1. Proc. 19th
subjects that have little to do with vision. session Kyoto, 1979.
Of course, real problems of visual ergo- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 13. Vos JJ, Leebeek HJ, Boogaard J. Visual
nomics, like glare, colour coding et cetera This is the last in a series of six review ergonomics—an interdisciplinary ap-
proach. Paper presented at the Stockholm
pass the review but the contraction of papers in Clinical and Experimental Optom- Congress on Ergophthalmology, unfortu-
ergonomics and visual display terminals to etry that I would never have written without nately omitted from the Proceedings.
visual ergonomics did not appeal to me. the continuing gentle pressure by Barry 14. Goethe JW. Faust I. Schülerscene, 1808.

© 2009 The Author Clinical and Experimental Optometry 92.2 March 2009
Journal compilation © 2009 Optometrists Association Australia 131
From visual performance to visual ergonomics Vos

15. Snellen H. Probebuchstaben zur Bestim-

mung der Sehscharfe. Utrecht University,
1862.
16. Wood JM. Aging, driving and vision. Clin
Exp Optom 2002; 85: 214–220.
17. Vos JJ, Padmos P, Boogaard J. Occupational
testing of near vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
1994; 14: 413–418.
18. CIE. A Guide for the Design of Road Traffic
Lights. CIE Publication 79, 1988.
19. CIE. Colours of Light Signals. CIE Standard
S 004/E, 2001.
20. Vos JJ. On the cause of disability glare and
its dependence on glare angle, age and
ocular pigmentation. Clin Exp Optom 2003;
86: 363–370.
21. Wagenaar WA. Optische guidance in the
Volkerak locks. Report Institute for Per-
ception TNO 1967. (in Dutch; http://
tmbiebtm.tno/tmfs/rapporten/1967/67-
C001.pdf).
22. Anshel J. Visual Ergonomics in the Work-
place. London UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd,
1998.

Corresponding author:
Dr JJ Vos
Overboslaan 43
3722BK Bilthoven
THE NETHERLANDS
E-mail: j.j.vos@wanadoo.nl

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 92.2 March 2009 © 2009 The Author
132 Journal compilation © 2009 Optometrists Association Australia