You are confusing the angle of the monitor's face from vertical and the angle between the monitor and the line of sight.
No, I'm not. It makes no difference what the monitor's position from vertical is. The only angle of relevance is the viewing angle. Whether the angle is tilted 10 degrees toward the ceiling or 90 degrees doesn't matter.
You're confusing proper placement for ergonomics with placement for reflections. Proper installation location of a monitor has never been an issue in this thread.
The angle of the monitor's face should be between 15 degrees and 50 degrees off of true vertical (i.e. wall mounted).
Irrelevant. That is advice for placement sitting at a desk chair and has nothing to do with overall use in terms of reflectivity. The only ergonomic statement is that the line of sight should be perpendicular to the display.
The 15-50 range doesn't apply to standing, lying down, or partial reclining and isn't the subject of debate.
The glossy picked up too much reflection. The matte didn't convey the detail.
The difference being that you can avoid reflection by moving the display. You cannot avoid ambient light without going into the shade. The greater brightness and contrast simply allows for greater visibility in full sun--it's a simple function of the increased brightness and contrast, not of glossy v. matte (except that the glossy display is what facilitates the enhancement).
Notice how it ends with "While glossy screens may be the current fad, manufacturers would be better served by offering their customers a matte option for all models.")
Notice instead how it says "Lenovo's poll may not reflect the true preference of the buying public in general" and how the methodology is flawed since it didn't ask a true comparison--it only asked for a gut reaction, which is exactly what they received. Some other useful quotes:
"Newer coating technologies are able to reduce glare somewhat while maintaining bright colors and a glossy sheen."
"There are some advantages to having a glossy screen: in particular,
outdoor visibility is greatly increased."
And once again, I never opposed offering a choice. You're continuing to attack a series of self-created strawmen, while self-selecting what you want to hear from sources that don't, in fact, say what you think they do.
I went to Fry's Electronics this evening. The glossy over matte is hardly lopsided. Most PCs are glossy. But the stand alone monitors and televisions were mixed.
Seems quite lopsided to me, particularly if you ask which ones are moving faster (hint: it's the glossy ones).
Also, you can find dozens of threads from those who regret their decision.
Such as?
Change for the sake of change is pointless.
Without even assessing the validity of that statement, glossy panels don't qualify as "change for the sake of change." You get better ambient light performance, greater brightness, greater contrast, richer colors, better black levels, and a more durable surface. Color accuracy is not a factor in midmarket consumer products, and the glare issue is grossly overblown.
