= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ephion comments on Ergonomics Revisited - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
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.
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.
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.