It’s phenomenal for reading threads and large pages but I’m not sure it’s good for you.
It’s phenomenal for reading threads and large pages but I’m not sure it’s good for you.
I have fairly aggressive progressive trifocals, and don't have problems with my 27" portrait monitors. I just angle them so the top tilts toward me.
I much preferred my portrait 4:3 1600x1200 (as 3:4) monitor a decade ago. Was close to perfect since there was room for two long windows side by side.
I've wondered if 16:10 might be good also. But as mentioned, those choices were eliminated in the "great widescreening" of the 2010s.
The whole presumption that you want to spend 8 hours in an ergonomically ideal position without motion seems like bunk. Indeed, I find changing positions to be much more ergonomically valuable than having an ideal position. If I spend 30 minutes each across 16 awkward positions, I do just fine. An ergonomic chair, mechanical keyboard, perfect-height monitor, etc. for an 8 hour stretch each day hits me much harder.
That’s because it is bunk. Low back pain researchers found ages ago that the most ergonomic setup for alleviating back pain was the one that let you shift positions every 15 minutes or so. There is no position so ergonomic that the body can tolerate holding it for extended periods of time.
Each year my company's HR department brings in ergonomics experts who watch each employee work, and they make suggestions (This employee needs a new chair... this employee's keyboard is at the wrong angle... this employee sits too low and his feet aren't on the floor right... etc...)
The last time they came through, they voiced no objections to my portrait monitors.