Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:14:32 -0700, Edward Jaffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... There just is no less productive 3270 setting than 24x80!
...
I think that's an unsubstantiated assertion. Productivity is a property
of the individual, and is subject to individual preferences. Maybe some
people are most productive using a 24x80. I find that with my glasses
(continuously variable "bifocals") I've got a relatively small area of
the screen in focus at one time. A mod 4 (43x80) display using a fixed
10x12 pixel font is about what I can handle without much head movement.
I dislike 24x80 because there is too little information per page, but I
would find your 62x142 as or more frustrating because I would have to use
too small a font or too large a physical screen size.
If I am less productive than you I suspect it has little to do with the
difference in our 3270 emulator screen sizes. :-)
Over the years, I have observed that there are rather obvious parallels
between 3270 screen size and Windows desktop resolution. Naturally, each
individual has his or her own optimum size/resolution.
My (admittedly anecdotal) experiences -- which include observations of
other people's habits, preferences, productivity, and performance --
lead me to state with confidence that the minimum size/resolution
offered is almost never the most productive setting for "ordinary"
people i.e., those for whom accessibility features are not required.
The minimum Windows resolution used to be 640x480. These days I believe
it's 800x600. From what I've seen, most people, with normal 4:3 aspect
ratio desktop monitors, run 1024x768 or higher. (That's the same
resolution used by the projectors at SHARE and is not considered
particularly high.) I currently run 1600x1200.
I've yet to have anyone complain when I transformed their 3270 display
from 24x80 to larger values. The "trick" is to adopt an iterative
process of gradual acceptance. I would never force anyone to "jump" from
24x80 to 62x142. Rather, they first get used to 32x80, then 43x80, then
43x121 and so forth. My boss, who almost never uses ISPF, currently runs
90x132!
And, I would use a lot more than 62 rows if ISPF would let me!
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
