Monitor for retirement age

[Squidmaster]

I am looking into purchasing my retired mom a new monitor, and I wonder if there are any suggestions out there either for specific panels or with advice on how to choose a monitor for someone of this age. My initial thoughts are that it might be wise to get something that would display a bit larger naturally (i.e. not 1920x1080 and 24") that could perhaps have variable or medium to lower brightness settings. Does this make sense?

Your input is welcome, and thanks!

 

[Arkaign]

Well, he's technically not 'retired', but I helped one of my clients who is closing on 80 years old and still working hard with this very issue. He primarily reads/responds to emails and follows press releases/etc. We ended up going with a 32" 720p TV, I think it was a Samsung LCD. It was very easy for him to read, and besides being a little large, the native resolution was extremely readable at ~3' away. We chose that after he didn't like the 24" 1200p Dell screen that preceded it. Even with the font/icon scaling adjusted on Win7, some things were still difficult to read for him.

 

[DaveSimmons]

My eyesight is second-rate, and I've used Dell high-res panels with good scaling at lower-than-native resolution for years now: 2001FP 20", 16x12 at 1024x768; 240xFP 24" 19x12 at 14x9.

A lower overall resolution is going to work better than font scaling since with that the layouts on web pages and in some programs can get messed up.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

i would encourage font scaling. XP and stuff used bad font scaling, but Vista and 7 should do it fine now.

 

[Arkaign]

i would encourage font scaling. XP and stuff used bad font scaling, but Vista and 7 should do it fine now.

I've recently tried to get that to work (related to the situation above), but it turned out to be unpracticable due to the OS not having full override of all font sizing. I think this is probably due to how many things it would break in terms of window sizing, text boxes, etc. All of the things that could be adjusted worked great, particularly web pages, but many things we just couldn't get around. Of the few apps that the gentleman uses, none of them outside of Outlook and IE could be suitably adjusted to match

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

You never said what age but, the tone of the post makes your mom sound ancient or maybe my age.

 

[Squidmaster]

She isn't. It is just unlikely she will get another monitor for years, so I want to choose something that can last and be effective into her 70's and up. To give you a sense of what she finds comfortable, she has been using a 19" CRT at 1024x768 or 1280x960 or whatever it is. I believe she accidentally started using the latter and is doing ok with it, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[manimal]

try to find a refurbed 4-3 20 inch lcd. Thats what I gave my father in law and he could see much better than widescreen..

 

[frozentundra123456]

try to find a refurbed 4-3 20 inch lcd. Thats what I gave my father in law and he could see much better than widescreen..

I would tend to agree with this poster. We have 1280x1024 monitors at work, while I use a widescreen at home for gaming. The widescreen is good for gaming, but for working with spreadsheets, surfing the web, using Word, etc. I actually like the older 4:3 monitor more.
BTW, getting older does not have to mean you have bad vision you know. I am getting up there and have 20/20 vision in both eyes after correction.

 

[betasub]

^ 1280x1024 is a 5:4 ratio. The 4:3 20" LCD manimal describes is typically 1600x1200 (with a small pixel pitch) - although other lower 4:3 resolutions should look OK.

 

[Arkaign]

I would tend to agree with this poster. We have 1280x1024 monitors at work, while I use a widescreen at home for gaming. The widescreen is good for gaming, but for working with spreadsheets, surfing the web, using Word, etc. I actually like the older 4:3 monitor more.
BTW, getting older does not have to mean you have bad vision you know. I am getting up there and have 20/20 vision in both eyes after correction.

That's why you get a 24"-27" with 1920x1200, so you don't lose that precious vertical real estate

I would say 30" 2560x1560 or whatever, but that's baller $$$.

 

[Squidmaster]

Yes, price is an object. No 30 inchers here. Actually, my mom has some issues with stomach upset with moving things on screen (and she plays games), so my thought is that a big panel could make that worse due to having your field of vision filled more with moving objects. My initial thought is 24", but without a super high resolution.

 

[taltamir]

enlarging via OS, even with win7, is still epic fail. It breaks everything. For the vision impaired there is a "zoom" function but its horrible and uncomfortable. The only practical solution is to use a lower resolution.

what you want is to use a lower resolution, you should get her the BIGGEST monitor you can and run it at a low resolution. For my 52 year old mom she uses a 24 inch widescreen monitor running at IIRC 1440x900. The rule is, higher the resolution the smaller text becomes. I also had to teach my mom to adjust the resolution so she could adjust it to her satisfaction as needed.
The specific resolution I gave btw only works well only for a 16:10 ratio monitor, most likely if you buy a monitor today it will be 1920x1080 native resolution (1080p) aka 16:9 ratio which means you should use something that is a multiplication of that.

The monitors given resolution is the MAXIMUM resolution it can display, aka native resolution, aka how many physical pixels it has. it has no problems at all displaying a lower resolution by stretching it, making everything larger.

 

[VirtualLarry]

what you want is to use a lower resolution, you should get her the BIGGEST monitor you can and run it at a low resolution.

The monitors given resolution is the MAXIMUM resolution it can display, aka native resolution, aka how many physical pixels it has. it has no problems at all displaying a lower resolution by stretching it, making everything larger.

This is probably the best solution. A neighbor lady of mine wanted a new monitor last year, and this is what we did. Emachines 1920x1080 21.5" LCD from Staples, configured to something like 1366x768 or so. Still very readable, and the text is bigger.

 

[Meghan54]

Why not just a simple 19" LCD with native 1280 x 1024 resolution? Wouldn't have to spend over $200 to get a quality unit and the lower res. is perfect for aging eyes. Bought my 82 y.o. mother a Viewsonic a few months ago that is exactly like what I mentioned and she loves it. Text is perfect size without having to go through any resetting of the native res.

 

[Barfo]

I got my mom a 24". Native res is 1080p but she runs it at 720p. It's good enough for her.

 

[toyota]

I got my mom a 24". Native res is 1080p but she runs it at 720p. It's good enough for her.

I dont understand that because it will look like blurry crap. if you are too blind to run a monitor at its native res then buy something different. getting a 1280x1024 19inch like Meghan54 mentioned makes the most sense if your vision is poor especially if you are too old to even care about widescreen.

 

[Barfo]

I dont understand that because it will look like blurry crap. if you are too blind to run a monitor at its native res then buy something different. getting a 1280x1024 19inch like Meghan54 mentioned makes the most sense if your vision is poor especially if you are too old to even care about widescreen.

I don't like it either, but I guess that if your eyes are bad you don't notice it anyway. She wanted stuff to be big so a 19" wasn't a good option.

 

[Squidmaster]

Hehe, she is getting older but she isn't blind. I'm just not sure it's wise to switch from 19" 1024x768 or the 1280 equivalent to something much smaller in your late 60's. The trouble is I don't know if it is possible to get a monitor anymore that doesn't squeeze every pixel out of the panel. I'm also concerned that if I *can* find one, it may be a piece of junk otherwise.

 

[toyota]

I don't like it either, but I guess that if your eyes are bad you don't notice it anyway. She wanted stuff to be big so a 19" wasn't a good option.

what do you mean? a 19inch 1280x1024 screen is pretty darn big. its physically as tall as a 27 inch widescreen would be and the dot pitch is very large.

 

[ZimZum]

In addition to Font scaling setting the default zoom level in their web browser to at least 120% also helps alot.

 

[taltamir]

I dont understand that because it will look like blurry crap. if you are too blind to run a monitor at its native res then buy something different. getting a 1280x1024 19inch like Meghan54 mentioned makes the most sense if your vision is poor especially if you are too old to even care about widescreen.

1. I can tell its blurry, a bit, but its not crap and most old people (especially ones with bad eyesight) can tell the difference.
2. You need a 40 inch 1080p TV to have such large pixels. And this just aint happening. running a 19 incher at its native resolution is a horrible idea, it will be just as tiny as 24 incher at its native resolution. You give an old person with bad eyesight an 19 inch monitor with 1280x1024 native res and they will run it at 800x600 (lowest win7 will do let you go) and complain the text is too small to read.

 

[Squidmaster]

I am used to a 27" 1920x1200 monitor. Roughly what resolution compares to that in terms of image and text size for a 24" panel?

What size widescreen monitor is roughly equivalent to a 19" CRT?

 

[taltamir]

I am used to a 27" 1920x1200 monitor. Roughly what resolution compares to that in terms of image and text size for a 24" panel?

What size widescreen monitor is roughly equivalent to a 19" CRT?

1920x1200 = 16:10 ratio. (16 horizontal inches/cm/whatever per 10 vertical ones)

let theta be the angle such that it is opposite the 10 and adjacent to the 16.
tan(theta) = 10/16
theta = arctan(10/16) = 32.005 degrees.

Y = vertical length
X = horizontal length

sin(theta) = Y/Hyp
Y = Hyp*sin(theta) = 27*sin(theta) = 14.3 inch
cos(theta) = X/Hyp
X = Hyp*cos(theta) = 27*cos(theta) = 22.9 inch
1200 pixels / 14.3 inch vertical = 83.9 pixels/inch
1920 pixels / 22.9 inch horizonal = 83.8 pixels/inch
Rounding errors are probably the cause for the minute difference between the two.

Q: at what resolution would a 24 inch panel have similar text size?
A: Assuming you meant a 16:10 24 inch panel (it matters) then:

theta = arctan(10/16) = 32.005 degrees.
sin(theta) = Y/Hyp
Y = Hyp*sin(theta) = 24*sin(theta) = 12.7 inch
cos(theta) = X/Hyp
X = Hyp*cos(theta) = 24*cos(theta) = 20.4 inch

you are aiming at 83.8 to 83.9 pixels per inch, lets go with 83.85 for consistency, we use the equation a bit differently this time.

A / 12.7 inch vertical = 83.85 pixels/inch
A = 12.7*83.85 vertical * pixels * inch/inch = 1064.895 vertical pixels ~ 1065
B / 20.4 inch horizonal = 83.85 pixels/inch
B = 20.4*83.85 horizontal * pixels * inch/inch = 1710.54 horizontal pixels ~ 1711

So your 24 inch 16:10 panel (likely with native resolution of 1920x1200) needs to be set to a resolution of 1711:1065 to have identical text/picture size to your 27".
since you don't want distortion (the figures above are not exactly 16:10 due to rounding errors) you must maintain your aspect ratio, take 1065 * (16/10) and you get 1704... so its better use 1704:1065.
but I wouldn't recommend running at such an odd resolution at all. 1680:1050 is a standard resolution and makes more sense to run. it will be ever so slightly bigger.

 

[Squidmaster]

Wow, you were prepared on that one! Haha. It seems like all 24 inchers now are 1920x, which is pushing it for ease of readability. Is a 22 inch at 1680x more readable?