I suppose I really should know better than to question the size of someone's tools.
Were this a carpentry list, and I dared suggest those with smaller hammers were just as productive as those with bigger ones, I imagine the small firestorm from a very few people would be about the same. And god forbid I suggest those with TWO hammers weren't outproducing those with only one. But where would it end? Surely the guys with THREE hammers would be deeply offended at any suggestion they weren't any better than the guys with only two! BTW There are actually lots of studies that can be designed to show more (or bigger) monitors mean higher scores on certain tests. Here's one: http://research.microsoft.com/displayarticle.aspx?id=433 Here's another which is probably closer to the mark: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen-productivity.html >It's a classic mistake for people who are new to usability to test individual system features as opposed to higher-level tasks that users want to perform. In other words, you can whine all day about how some part of your specific job would be made tougher if you had to sit closer to a smaller screen, but that doesn't prove your point. Don't worry, I'm not suggesting you give up your bigger (or multiple) monitors, heck, I wish I had a wraparound monitor here. But there have been coders/editors/carpenters that came before you with much smaller tools and they still had no trouble coding/editing/hammering rings around you, regardless how big your monitor(s) are. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
