Are 30" monitors too big?

[Winterpool]

Virge has some excellent points relating to the question of 'can you have too much resolution'. So long as operating systems, apps, and designers presume a relatively coarse DPI, and we lack smooth scaling of elements beyond fonts (and even fonts are sometimes problematic), then many conventional apps, images, websites, etc can seem too small. On the other hand, even with big displays, dot pitches are still above 0.2 mm and total resolutions still 4 megapixels or less.

As a strong proponent of image quality, I think it would be lovely if we could actually see 12 megapixel pictures unresampled on our computer screens, images that could look utterly smooth ('analogue') to the human eye. But if operating systems don't adopt to such high resolutions, it will never be practical to build such superfine displays for the consumer market.

 

[0roo0roo]

For desktop use? Absolutely.

To get straight to the point, there are two fundamental truths in GUI design:

1) The common monitor is 96dpi
2) The "sweet spot" for how far back a user should be sitting to viewing such a monitor is 20"-28"

This leads to a problem: most GUI elements are designed around those assumptions. A button, for example, should look a certain size on a 96dpi monitor at 20"-28" back.

Worse, no modern OS can properly scale an entire screen. Win7 can do DPI scaling of text easily enough, but anything bitmapped (such as the aforementioned button) will always be the same dimensions as defined in pixels.

So why is this a problem for a 30" monitor? As monitors have grown resolution, they've simultaneously grown in physical size to maintain the same 96dpi (give or take a few pixels). In 1995 you were sitting 20"-28" from your 15" 1024x768 CRT, in 2005 you were sitting 20"-28" from your 20" 1680x1050 LCD, and in 2010 you're sitting 20"-28" from your 30" 2560x1600 LCD.

With every expansion in physical size, the amount of your direct field of vision occupied by your monitor has increased. This is not immediately a bad thing, but with a fixed DPI and fixed viewing distance it means that there's a finite limit - you can only see so much.

From my own experience, I consider a 24" monitor to be a limit. On a 30" monitor there's simply too much - I can't see the entire screen in my direct field of vision without having to dart my eyes around by a significant degree. The Win7 orb is all the way in the bottom left-hand corner, while the Close button is all the way in the top right.

For desktop use this is unmanageable. All of the extra resolution isn't making my experience any better because it's more than I can see. It's not like the "real world" where the object of my focus is in a very narrow spot in front of me - every bit of text on the screen has value and I need to be able to read it.

Now I could move the monitor back, but this has the impact of breaking the 96dpi/20"-28" rule listed above. I can now see the entirety of the monitor, but all fixed-resolution assets (basically any bitmapped images) are the same dimension since OS DPI scaling only scales text and vector images. Or in other words, if I sit back farther I can't read images.

So yes, for desktop use 30" is too big. In fact for desktop use I'd consider monitors outright stagnant: you can't make them physically bigger because they'll be outside of the user's FOV, and you can't increase the pixel density because they won't be able to properly see fixed-resolution assets. Until we're in an all-vector world where everyone can size images and text to their needs, the 24" 96dpi monitor is king.

However this only applies to desktop use. For movies, gaming, and really anything where you don't need to read text, a 30" monitor is fine. In those situations objects being outside of your FOV are not a major issue, and may in fact be intentional.

depends entirely how well you multitask, there is no reason for everything to be within your field of view at all times, its never been possible with dual/triple screen setups with smaller monitors as well. If you must maximize everything sure, its not practical, but thats not how its meant to be used. its like saying your desk has to fit your focus spot.

 

[konakona]

Monitors are like boobs. They can never be too big!

well some of us would rather have it small and firm, quality over quantity ya hear?
that being said, for my intended use size trumps pixel pitch. I understand for general computer use which I don't put much emphasis on having access to higher rez is quite valuable though.

 

[pmv]

Virge makes a good argument, though I am not sure I am entirely convinced by the specifics. Seems obvious there must be _some_ limit at which point it becomes silly - e.g. a monitor where you have to get up and walk to the other end of the room to see the far end of the desktop, or have to climb a ladder to see what that dialog box is saying at the top of the screen is not practical. I'm just not totally convinced that 24" _is_ that point.

But Virge's point about designing for a certain dpi and viewing distance does give some objective facts to build an argument on.

Surely there must be formal academic studies on exactly this topic?

 

[NoQuarter]

Virge makes a good argument, though I am not sure I am entirely convinced by the specifics. Seems obvious there must be _some_ limit at which point it becomes silly - e.g. a monitor where you have to get up and walk to the other end of the room to see the far end of the desktop, or have to climb a ladder to see what that dialog box is saying at the top of the screen is not practical.

I am intrigued and wish to buy this monitor you speak of.