Hi there
I've been starting to research whether the evidence really shows that two monitors make you more productive, and there's something in the articles - about pixels - that I don't understand. Hoping maybe someone can explain.
First, here's the studies/evidence I've found information about:
- Overview of Four Studies:
http://www.corecommunication.ca/4-s...sing-a-second-monitor-can-boost-productivity/
- Kind of For:
Feb 2012 NY Times In Data Deluge, Multitaskers Go to Multiscreens
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/t...ve-office-efficiency.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
- Kind of Against:
So my question is, can someone explain why the number of pixels makes a difference if you're not doing graphics/photography work, and why it would make you more productive? I don't really get the whole pixels-on-a-monitor thing?
Thx.,
Lisa
I've been starting to research whether the evidence really shows that two monitors make you more productive, and there's something in the articles - about pixels - that I don't understand. Hoping maybe someone can explain.
First, here's the studies/evidence I've found information about:
- Overview of Four Studies:
http://www.corecommunication.ca/4-s...sing-a-second-monitor-can-boost-productivity/
- Kind of For:
Feb 2012 NY Times In Data Deluge, Multitaskers Go to Multiscreens
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/t...ve-office-efficiency.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
- Kind of Against:
We'd almost always read that multiple monitors were a nice productivity kick in the pants, too (we've even offered some tips for making the most of your multiple monitors), so to answer your question, we thought it was only appropriate to ask the person who mentioned the second monitor myth you're referring to. So we asked technologist Clay Johnson from InfoVegan: What's the deal with this multi-monitor myth? Here's what he said
Manage Pixels, not MonitorsP
My How to Focus article got a lot of people thinking about attention fitness and how they could use interval training to increase their attention spans. One thing I mentioned was quite controversialthat I got rid of a second monitor. A lot of people disagreedPeople love their multiple monitors, and we've been told over and over again that multiple monitors "boosts productivity."P
Let's shine some light here on the multi-monitor setup. Just where do these productivity claims come from?P
The first report I could find is a report from the University of Utah in 2003 followed up by a new one in 2008. If you follow the money, you can likely predict the resultsthe study was commissioned by monitor manufacturer NEC. And surprise, the results of the study are: buy bigger, more expensive monitors!P
What's surprising is that the media crooned over the multiple monitor part of the study, when the study came to the conclusion that it was pixels, not monitors that increased productivity. What's also surprising is that while the report mentioned that there were productivity gains in certain tasks with more screen real estate, those gains begin to taper between 26 and 30 inches, or at monitors where the native resolution is 2560x1440 or greater.P
My take: there's an optimal number of pixels you need to complete the tasks you need to complete. Worry about that number, not the number of monitors you have. That optimal number, for the vast majority of people is about 2500x1400. In 2003before widescreen became commonplaceit was the case that 2 17-20"(2560 pixels wide) LCDs was the only affordable way to acquire an optimal number of pixels. Today, you can pick up a 27 inch display with 2560x1440 pixels along with a computer attached to it for under $1500. This number of pixels allows you to accomplish most taskswhether it's writing code and debugging, writing a blog post and reading primary sources, or editing one spreadsheet with data from another.P
Manage Pixels, not MonitorsP
My How to Focus article got a lot of people thinking about attention fitness and how they could use interval training to increase their attention spans. One thing I mentioned was quite controversialthat I got rid of a second monitor. A lot of people disagreedPeople love their multiple monitors, and we've been told over and over again that multiple monitors "boosts productivity."P
Let's shine some light here on the multi-monitor setup. Just where do these productivity claims come from?P
The first report I could find is a report from the University of Utah in 2003 followed up by a new one in 2008. If you follow the money, you can likely predict the resultsthe study was commissioned by monitor manufacturer NEC. And surprise, the results of the study are: buy bigger, more expensive monitors!P
What's surprising is that the media crooned over the multiple monitor part of the study, when the study came to the conclusion that it was pixels, not monitors that increased productivity. What's also surprising is that while the report mentioned that there were productivity gains in certain tasks with more screen real estate, those gains begin to taper between 26 and 30 inches, or at monitors where the native resolution is 2560x1440 or greater.P
My take: there's an optimal number of pixels you need to complete the tasks you need to complete. Worry about that number, not the number of monitors you have. That optimal number, for the vast majority of people is about 2500x1400. In 2003before widescreen became commonplaceit was the case that 2 17-20"(2560 pixels wide) LCDs was the only affordable way to acquire an optimal number of pixels. Today, you can pick up a 27 inch display with 2560x1440 pixels along with a computer attached to it for under $1500. This number of pixels allows you to accomplish most taskswhether it's writing code and debugging, writing a blog post and reading primary sources, or editing one spreadsheet with data from another.P
So my question is, can someone explain why the number of pixels makes a difference if you're not doing graphics/photography work, and why it would make you more productive? I don't really get the whole pixels-on-a-monitor thing?
Thx.,
Lisa
