ephion comments on Ergonomics Revisited - Less Wrong

7 Post author: diegocaleiro 22 April 2014 09:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ephion 23 April 2014 06:42:40PM 0 points [-]

Why would I want that when I can get two of these, have 43" of real estate, and $240 left over?

Comment author: gjm 23 April 2014 10:34:19PM 1 point [-]

Because it has twice as many pixels as two of those.

(Is that enough reason? Maybe not. But that's the main reason you'd want it, if you did.)

Comment author: ephion 24 April 2014 07:30:25PM 0 points [-]

Fair point! I think 1080 is fine for me and the extra screen space would be more useful than finer resolution, but I can definitely see how resolution could be more important for other applications.

Comment author: gjm 24 April 2014 10:47:02PM 1 point [-]

What extra screen space? I fear you may have been taken in by the monitor marketers' cunning ruse of measuring size in (linear) inches.

A 39" monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio is 34" x 19" and has an area of 650 square inches.

A 22" monitor with 18:9 aspect ratio is 19" x 11" and has an area of 207 square inches.

So one of the former has considerably more screen space than two of the latter.

Comment author: joaolkf 24 May 2014 01:54:53AM *  0 points [-]

Human's lateral visual search is considerably more efficient than horizontal. 414 spreaded more laterally beats regular 650. There are ultra-wide huge screens, of course, but they weren't cheaper per inches than two monitors when I did my research 6 months ago.

Comment author: Alsadius 24 April 2014 12:12:20AM 0 points [-]

Then get four, for $20 more.

Comment author: gjm 24 April 2014 08:22:40AM 1 point [-]

So now you have the same number of pixels as from that one big monitor, but you either need a fancy mounting mechanism for putting the monitors above one another or else need twice the width on your desk. And you get a big wide thing you probably can't see all of at once, instead of something a more natural shape. And it's divided into four bits which limits the possible shapes and sizes of your windows. And it's more expensive.

Again, for sure you might have good reasons to choose four smaller monitors instead of one really big one. But (1) the one big one has definite advantages and (2) I repeat, I wasn't saying "hey, everyone should get one of these things" but "yes, as it happens such things do exist and here's an example".