Slashdot Mirror
Are There Affordable Low-DPI Large-Screen LCD Monitors?
jtownatpunk.net writes "As time goes by, I find myself supporting a greater number of users moving through their 40s and into their 50s (and beyond!). I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger.' That was fine in the CRT days, but, quite frankly, LCDs look like crap when they're not displaying their native resolution. My solution at home is to hook my computer up to a big, honkin' 1080p HDTV, but that's a bit of a political risk in an office environment. 'Why does Bill get a freakin' big screen TV?!' Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc. that will never be used. And a 37-47" display is a bit large for a desk. So here's my question: Is there a source for 24-27" monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and don't have all of the 'TV' stuff? Or is my only choice to just buy 27" HDTVs and admonish the users not to watch TV? (And, no, just giving them big CRTs is not an option. Most people would rather stare at a fuzzy LCD than 'go back' to a CRT.)"
Are there any affordable High DPI monitors? Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful. My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable. Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density? I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.
I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small. Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.
Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution. That seems to have fallen by the wayside, but this is part of the correct solution--the other part is to alow the user to just say they want everything to be displayed larger at a specified ratio.
Are you adequate?
...because if your eyes can't focus on the screen, everything's going to be blurry regardless. As long as the blurred area of an individual pixel on the rescaled display projects into an area smaller than the circle of confusion on your retina, it won't affect your perception of the screen's overall sharpness.
There is a preference for large icons, but not all third-party non-free applications respect it.
I have also solved this problem by using an LCD projector. One day when I left my glasses at home, I spent the day reading off the wall instead of my laptop.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Let's say you have a 1680x1050 LCD monitor. Try to set the OS at 840x525. The monitor will use exactly four pixels to display each pixel from the computer, so you'll still get a razor-sharp image.
Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size), but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days. And given the number of netbooks sold, more and more applications should try to support 800x480, which means they should be okay with 840x525.
30 inch LCDs are available, with native resolution of 2560x1600. They're not cheap, of course.
If you need really big pixels for the vision-impaired, just run them at 1280x800 and there will be no artifacts (exactly 1:2 ratio), but still a tolerable resolution.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Finding myself in my mid 40's with a eye problem has affected work to a large extent. 20/20 all my life to end up with distorted vision in my right eye has led to a number of changes. First, went back to the huge Mitsubishi 2070 CRT. I find it clearer that the 19" LCD's. Second, received glare reducing glasses from corporate HR (gunnars.com) which greatly help glare issues with my wonky eye. Without the glasses I cannot work a full day. Third, installed a theme manager to try and darken the windows screen. For the most part this works except for the inability to darken Outlook backgrounds and still be able to read email.. Fourth, looking into a large LCD or similar which can display a high resolution (lots of real estate) with "large fonts"...
Fixer of things broken by people who really ought to know better
Beyond the fact that the Windows resolution dialog won't let you choose that whacky resolution, there's also the problem that 540 pixels is not enough. Seriously, a lot of dialog boxes are not going to fit on that screen, probably even including the Windows display dialog box. You're going to need a 1920x1200 display just to get a somewhat more usable 960x600 after you quarter (not half) the resolution. A 2560x1600 would be better though, as you'd at least get 800 vertical pixels out of it, which is enough for small laptops and other inexpensive displays. The problem is that such a display is likely to fall short in the "affordable" category.
I read the internet for the articles.
Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / Magnifier
This will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else. Best case scenario: No need for a new monitor. (Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification?) Worst case scenario: It does nothing to help you and you've spent no money to find that out.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Run linux. Run windows in vmware. Use the magnify effect of kwin to solve your tiny fonts problem. Now, you use the correct resolution of your LCD, have scaling as good as possible, and crash protection.
Once more linux/KDE saves the day.
Indeed. Heck we have one application we got recently where it can created custom database fields, but if you create more than the screen will hold they just go off screen - they don't even have the decency to display a scroll bar. Just inaccessibly off screen.
As a result we had to bump all users of that app up to 1024x768 minimum. Now, personally, that's pretty low anyways (I run my 17" office LCD at 1280x1024), but a LOT of the older users complain at anything higher than 800x600. And in this case increasing font sizes won't help - it'll just push the info back off screen again.
I think we're eventually just going to have to look into getting them some big honkin monitors to compensate. 1024x768 might be small (to them) on a 17" screen, but on a 24" screen I'm betting they won't complain.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Not to mention the fact that 'Large Fonts' are actually not that large if you're sitting more than a foot from the monitor. Personally I like to sit about 3 feet from the monitor, partially because this means I have notes on my desk between me and the monitor.
And large fonts are not that large because nobody writes software to scale properly - that's partially why Gmail is such a breeze, there's the implicit assumption in (good) web development that you cannot control fonts.
This brings up a good point. A couple of years ago there was an employee where I work who was having ergonomic issues with their workstation. The complaints were valid and one of the solutions turned out to be a flat panel, LCD monitor. The lesson that the rest of the staff learned was that if they complained about ergonomic issues, they would also get LCD monitors. Soon enough a team had to be formed to deal with all of the ergonomic complaints coming from the staff.
I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution. You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....
Another point: why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor? they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but can't display HD at native resolution (1290x1080). Even if you currently don't think you'll ever need to watch HD, wouldn't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case?
If there's a genuine medical need for special equipment like a larger monitor then of course it's good practice to provide that where it's economically viable to do so.
On a related note apparently reading text that is too small does have its downsides:
Readers were asked to read under six especially demanding conditions known to cause eye fatigue. These were: reading small text sizes; reading low-contrast gray text; reading with a light source behind the reading material to cause glare; reading from too close a distance, which causes the eyes to point inward towards each other (convergence stress); reading from variable focal distances (accommodative stress); and reading while wearing glasses that simulate an astigmatism (refractive stress). While people were reading under these extra stressful conditions, we measured the activation in the orbicularis oculi muscle with a sensor placed 1.25 cm below the eye. Readers reported eye fatigue after reading under each of these conditions. Small text sizes, low contrast, glare and refractive stress all resulted in increased activity in the orbicularis oculi, while convergence stress and accommodative stress did not, though after reading in these two conditions, readers are more likely to report headaches and pain coming from behind the eye. Stressors such as small text size and glare are reported as irritation on the front of the eye.
My personal experience relating to computer screens is that growing up I had CRT, until my mid-twenties when LCD started becoming affordable. Up until I was about nineteen I did not know about changing resolutions on my screen and thus ran in Windows native resolution (which in the case of 95/98/XP seemed to be 60hz). I suffered from frequent migraines that would start with flashing lights in-front of my eyes and end with two days of such blinding headache that I was unable to do anything buy stay in bed, inside a dark room, and during the first day I would throw up at least once. Several days after such an episode I would feel like I was serious hungover. Turning the refresh rate up to 100hz effectively cured me over night, I did not have another episode until my late twenties when I played console with a mate on a CRT TV an entire evening.
Perhaps a bit of a digression there. But do not underestimate the importance of a good screen and a comfortable text/gui-size; undue strain on your eyes can significantly reduce the quality and quantity of your work.
The Long Now Foundation
It is not that simple. I am 46, and I already have bifocals. I still have trouble with the computer screen. If the bifocal is strong enough to work well for reading and close-up work, it is a little too strong for the computer screen. If the distance section is good for infinity, it is also not right for the screen. A larger screen further away would work, I would be able to focus on it, and it would be large enough to see. I suppose I could try trifocals.
It's sad that employees have to complain to get computer equipment that will obviously carry healthier benefits for them regardless of whether or not they're suffering now.
It's like saying all employees should get cheap, shitty chairs until they complain about back problems.
Surely better productivity outweighs the cost of getting these screens?
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Windows 7/Vista allow you to set a global DPI value, and everything scales to that. Text, icons, window decoration, everything. Some older apps struggle with it but most are fine.
XP is a lot more limited, but Windows 7 and Vista have both made big improvements in this area.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC