What's the best way to set you are monitors?

What's the best way to set you are monitors?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=R26_F7pecqo
youtube.com/watch?v=3CgrMsjGk7k
youtube.com/watch?v=kCSzjExvbTQ
dailydot.com/debug/vertical-monitor-setup/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You've got the right idea.

That... looks weird but could work? idk

/thread
You're pretty good, dude.

much nicer for coding and reading documentation at the same time. i have my laptop connected as well, so i can watch videos on that, but i don't do much recreational shit except the background netflix

Did you forget to put an image or something?

This is pretty retarded tbqhmf

The whole point of widescreen is to be more ergonomic, in that you don't have to look up and down using your neck as much. Setting up your monitors like this is just making it much worse in that regard.

I'm not against 9:16 aspect ratio for code or reading, but setting a widescreen monitor on top of another is dumb af.

I like matching monitors set side by side with a slight off angle on one.

you don't use your neck looking left/right when having 2 monitors side-by-side?

Tetris block

i meant to say "two portrait orientation monitors and my laptop" but here's a picture since that's more illustrative. latex document i'm working on is on the left, i can build and preview the document on the right (although obviously i'm taking a break right now)

Correction the retarded cinema rations where only a gimmick to fuck over TV (you need pan and scan and get a inferior film VS cinema go to cinema) ad has nothing to do with productivity.

This cinema format is retarded you can not even fit a human head without it not fitting into the picture.

The only good aspect ration is 3:4 it has stood the test of time and was widely used in computers before every monitor needed to give the cinema experience of monitors.

the placement of our eyes suggests that a wider aspect ratio than 4:3 is pretty good. you might prefer 4:3 because it's more familiar to you, and that's fine, but i'm sure there are old people who still prefer to travel by train because that's more familiar to them as well.

I'm sorry it has nothing to do with preference.
I love to have a studied where people actually compeer what aspect is best for what tasks.

From my experience the 3:4 was the best give you vertical room.
I love to have a honest comparison for formats however we are not getting it.

Instead we have:
>monitors must have cinema formats or i get black bars in my movies!
Why are cinema films filmed in this ratio?
>Oh they all where 3:4 and after TV the movie studios invented ridicules ratios to fuck over TV so the movie looks like crap on 3:4 TVs

youtube.com/watch?v=R26_F7pecqo

youtube.com/watch?v=3CgrMsjGk7k


Educate yourself on this plz.

When looking left/right your neck & skull aren't acting against gravity though.

Yet the AR is crap unless you flip the monitor to the side like The vertical room is desperately needed for everything from text writing to web browsing. All the top and bottom bars squiz the actualy content so far that you need to scroll multiple times to see it.

Face it computers got fucked with the
>ZOMG I need my monitor to be a movie displaying device.

Look at the picture its the tests they did while inventing the layout for phones back in the day.
WE need something like this for computer monitors for web browsing to find the perfect AR not copy the cinema shit!

I like to test a fully square monitor and other configurations to see what is the best.

while i agree with the principle, the study seems to have dated itself. the rotary phone setup is significantly quicker to key in and has a lower error rate, and my hunch is that this study was done at a time that rotary phones were the established way of dialing in numbers.

that's not to say that this is totally wrong, but there are reasons that I-C was better then, which might not be the case now. that being said, i still use and like IV-B for my monitors because that - as you said - is how content that i use/make is laid out (that is, scrolling vertically)

i don't think you know what studies I'm talking about:
youtube.com/watch?v=kCSzjExvbTQ

Related:
dailydot.com/debug/vertical-monitor-setup/

Personally i think the size itself is important.
I love to try out a perfectly square monitor where the horizontal length is a little more then a vertical monitor.

Vertical monitors have the downside of sizing your task bar and a square one would give you both vertical space for your task bar and horizontal space for your reading.

the video says that the study was conducted in the 50s. it would have been really nice of you to provide a formal reference rather than a link to numberphile, which is a decent but not rigorous source of... anything, but nothing i've said is invalidated by this video.

I was trying to explain it as fast as possible on a chan.

I only want testing like this for monitors and was giving the 1950s study to be a example.

Primarily the result would need to be focused on power users end results and not on what nromies think is most intuitive.

I have a personal hatred of cinema and how it poisoned everything with its badshit new AR like 100:1 or other new crap.
You can not even watch movies without the actors face getting cut off with the retarded AR they how now.

>old people who still prefer to travel by train because that's more familiar to them as well.
The irony is that the train is a more efficient means of commuting and for transporting large numbers of people.

How else do you get places? jetpack?

pic related

pic related this time fuck

the problem is that any study - like the 50's study - is going to be situated in the culture of the people that are used in the study. at the time the rotary layout was popular. run the exact same study again today and the results wouldn't be the same. run the same study in 50 years and it'll probably be different yet again.

again, that's not to say that this research is crap or anything, just that we acclimate to the world around us. if you asked someone how to get to the top of a building, he would probably look around for stairs or an elevator. if you asked someone from papua new guinea, he would probably start looking for footholds and other ways to climb the walls.

trains are more fuel efficient. as it turns out, human hours are more valuable than fuel. getting people to their destination several hours (or indeed several days) earlier is worth the difference in price.

if you're transporting corpses or NEETs, you might be right, but we're talking about people who are going someplace for a reason.

Engineer here.

When I'm doing design and CAD work, widescreen meme ratios are fucking shit tier.

I'd love a 24" 4:3.
It doesn't make any fucking sense to have a horizontal wide screen, when text is written and read left to right, meaning labels and buttons are more efficient to put side by side.

All that happens is that you're left with an assload of toolbars and about 4cm of usable space to see your 3d model. horseshite

How big is your bottom monitor?

You drive faster than a train?

what sort of shit tier hobo-locamotives does your 3rd world country use?

Mate where I am, trains run 60mph in the cities and 125mph between cities - and even that's slow as fuck.

I can get somewhere by train in half the time I can get there by car.

retard

>You drive faster than a train?
when did i mention driving? what the fuck are you talking about?

>trains take days to get places

We're not talking about the fucking orient-express here, dickhead.

I don't even know what you are saying.

After mastering it the preference would be negligible. if the test subjects are professionals and not some normy.

We would need to tailor the monitor AR to the content we have today and I'm deliberately excluding movies or games (they can record them in the new AR) and concentrating on tasks like web browsing or document writing.

Given that the underlaying subject will stay the same and not have something like web pages forcing a AR like movies did the results should stay the same.

Given the same material one option will be better for example web browsing on a 100:1 AR will be hell no mater how you slice it.

You said trains take days. Where the fuck do live?

a cross country trip by train would take ~4 days without stopovers. a flight would take ~6 hours, maybe 10 with security, delays, etc...

are you using the train for trips to the store and shit? is that the context you imagined i was talking about?

>if you're transporting corpses or NEETs, you might be right, but we're talking about people who are going someplace for a reason.
Important people like yourself, who need to travel fast, so they can connect to the wifi and start shitposting on a Laotian youth baseball league card trading forum?

Amen brother you tell them.
This is why I'm actually advocating a perfectly square monitor, the tool bars will limit the screen to something looking like 4:3 for the actual model.

>a cross country trip by train would take ~4 days without stopovers.
fucking hell, I'm surprised you get internet down there in the middle of africa N'guenge.

>I don't even know what you are saying
i can't help you if you don't understand that human factors means understanding the culture and circumstances aside from the technology itself. you seem really interested in this subject, so i'll point you to read like... any papers from the 1980s in Human-Computer Interaction. it's a whole field. lots of CS people basically realizing that dumping a new interface on people and expecting them to "stop being normies about it" is autistic and more importantly doesn't work.

...

it's sunday. am i not allowed to relax on a sunday and also occasionally take flights?

africa's not a country, so "cross country" wouldn't make sense. maybe you don't know the difference between country and continent. what's your native language? maybe i can find the right translation for you.

even outside of the US, a flight from london to rome would take ~2.5 hours (without security or anything else considered). a quick glance suggests that the train would get you to paris in that time. my experience is that paris to rome is best done as an overnighter.

the problem with you and the other guy's false dichotomy is that you think that airline fuel is incredibly expensive, and that i'm demanding some extraordinary measures be taken to get me from one part of the world to another under some false pretext. that's not the case. fuel is cheap compared to what virtually any employed person is worth for the cost of a day or two.

if you needed to get from london to rome for something work related, spending a day in transit each way would mean *not* being at work those days. maybe you can get work done, but i think it's not especially controversial to say that you wouldn't be as productive on a train (or moving between trains) as you would be at your established desk/office.

your time might not be worth that much, but acting like you have to be a life-saving surgeon or a diplomat to be valuable enough to fly places is nuts. stop acting like idiots.

I don't even know what you are saying.
Let make it easy:
1) 1:100 AR is this good for reading?
No its terrible no human can ever reed on this shit you get massive problems if you try to make a 1:100 monitor.

2) Will people get different results if this is more familiar for them?
The answer is no, its a torture to use it only the most hardcore self torturing of troglodytes(practically no one except 12 people on the planet) will stay with the old familiar 1:100 AR.

You are saying something about people getting used to something, we are talking AR and I doubt normies even realized what a AR change is I have grandma level normies who didn't realize why sometimes there are black bars on the top or the sides while they watch TV.

you can switch their monitors with 3:4 and if they look the same (black, flat not the boxy CRTs) and are 24" they will not even notice the difference.

i was never engaging with you on the AR discussion. this was entirely about the image you posted and referenced, and the flaws with studies like that one.

>africa's not a country, so "cross country" wouldn't make sense. maybe you don't know the difference between country and continent. what's your native language? maybe i can find the right translation for you.
What the fuck are you talking about?
There are definitely countries in Africa.

If you don't believe the africans can make countries, I invite you to go back to racist fucker.

The study was a of hand example.
Not really a gold standard.
i used it for a illustration or crazy configurations getting studding.
I don't know of any other study like this that is familiar to people.

lol its a pednis xdddddddd

okay, you're intentionally acting like an idiot, but i'm not sure who you think you're amusing. hopefully you're at least you're at least amusing yourself.

Portrait is for faggots, and multimon is a meme except for analysts and day traders. Widescreen doesn't take anything away, it simply adds the ability to view two documents side by side. You do not need to be able to see 1000 lines of code on screen at once, if you feel like you do it means you're writing shit code that isn't well factored. Consider that plenty of high quality software was written in text mode or at 1024x768.

In conclusion, the best setup for most users is a single monitor displaying crisp text at a size that's comfortable to read from at least an arm's length away.

Factualy wrong.
You can test it by taking a monitor ant placing it vertical and see how much of Sup Forums you can see.

Or any other peruvian cartoon website.

>if you feel like you do it means you're writing shit code
>if you don't accept my opinion you are a shit programmer
And what have you written master programmer? I thing absolutely nothing.

And the retardation continues
>Consider that plenty of high quality software was written in text mode or at 1024x768.
>was written

Decades from now children will study in schools your post to see what true stupidity is.
let me demonstrate why your argument is stupid

The majority of software can be written on punch cards and it was for a long time.
This dose not make a shity process good simply because people tortured themselves with a tool that is awkward and hard and stupid.

You didn't even make a point.
Besides no one actually sit down and analyzed what is the best AR cinema make it to dick over TV and get people back into the cinema.

Its basically physical DRM your screen is not 20:5? Your picture is shit now.
You are sucking up to this crap while people have often demonstrated why a different AR even with a simply flipping of the screen is better.

Every time you need to scroll it takes time and is a distraction.

>In conclusion, the best setup for most users is a single monitor
>single monitor
Kill yourself.

Just stack a bunch of 25" ultrawide monitors in portrait mode and call it a day.

this is most contiguous with human vision as far as gamen goes.

the best monitor configuration is not an objective configuration but it's dependent on your work flow. I could see being quite good if the side monitors were aligned to the top of the center display for certain types of work.

enjoy your neck pain

>muh second screen foobar2000
>muh second screen dota strats
>muh second screen animes

See illustration.

Yeah, but not as much. Normal human eyes see in ~widescreen~