Discovering Two Screens Aren’t Better Than One (2014)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I have a multiple monitor setup on every system I use, and I find it essential for much of my work.
If you're not using your second display properly, that's on you, not the second monitor.
The problem for me was neck and shoulder strain. Constantly turning to the left or right always gave me problems. My posture degraded as I naturally moved farther back from the keyboard to take things in.
I dropped the second monitor a few years ago. My physical problems have gone away. I enjoy looking straight ahead now, and as others have mentioned, using a laptop on the train to code no longer feels limiting.
That strikes me as an admission that there IS a productivity gain by having more than one monitor though, physiological issues aside.
I worked about a year on a laptop and also used laptop at home a little. It was a horrifying experience, neck and back strain was really big because of terrible posture behind a laptop - low placed screen, too close screen to keyboard and yourself, narrow and unergonomic keyboard, small screen estate.
I should also point out that on the train, I have a table where I sit (not in my lap, that sucks). I also try to use a stand-up desk more for all-day laptop usage.
I'm now down to one monitor and I like it that way. Not that it's saved me in hardware costs much; instead of number and size of monitors, I'm now focused on buying laptops that have a high pixel density. The higher the better. Sadly, there hasn't been a lot of movement on that front in most laptops (I'm looking at you, Lenovo). I'll probably stick with a MBP until other companies catch up.
PS: Before somebody berates me about ergonomics, I use an external keyboard and mouse and I have a small stand that raises the screen to eye height. That's more of a personal preference, though. For about two years, I did all of my programming with a 17" macbook pro sitting on my lap in an ikea chair in a graduate student lounge without any ill effects. But then again, I lift. ;)
I found this went away for me if I balanced it out, such that I was looking right as often as I looked left.
For a three monitor layout, my "primary" monitor should be front and center, and the secondary monitors should be on either side. For two, the divide should be front and center. Beyond three, I grow vertically rather than horizontally. With this, I have no problem.
By the way I have some of my colleagues that use the second screen to display their gmail inbox, that's a great loss in productivity...
What's interesting to me is that someone who uses a work computer mainly for word processing (like the author) would think he could be more productive on two screens in the first place. Did other professions imitate web developers by using more than one monitor?
I switched from a 15" thinkpad to a 13" mackbook pro about a year ago, and even just that screen size and small resolution switch makes me feel more productive. They're comparatively speced, the only real difference is size and bulk, and that the macbook has significantly worse graphics capabilities, but in the grand scheme of things, they're basically the same underlying specs for development, just with a different screen.
Yeah, it is a bit of a pain to have to switch workspaces, or just rotate through windows to recompile something, or check a modification made to a web page compared to just turning your head a little, but because I'm forced to pay attention to one main thing at a time, I feel significantly more productive at that one thing.
It's mostly like the author said, removing additional distractions from the screen.
> "I have no research proving you’ll find as much benefit from a single monitor as I did."
But, the author does call upon a "professor", who then states:
> "But most people have their email up on the second screen"
Are you f-ing kidding me?
What we have here is the anecdotal evidence of one single journalist who's job clearly doesn't require having multiple screens.
This is just cheap clickbait.
Most of the windows managers are optimized around maximizing a window on a single display. So often you would have one screen maximized with one thing, second with another, and even better third. Simple as that.
If you are a game level designer, or builder, scripter, modeler, etc. you need one screen for the game, one for the edito, one for something else - it might be docked out windows from your editor.
Even coding - debuger, terminal, browser, or log viewer, etc.
Then you have people having irregular screen orientations - one screen rotated sideways - maybe for coding, or logs, the other one - for visualizing things.
I was firm unbeliever in more than one screen, until I was finally sold...
One for docs, two for IDEs, two for game clients - need to debug multiplayer after all. And all the related stuff like inviting a friend to a game and matchmaking. On multiple consoles. And PCs.
Even if I'm not doing PC multiplayer, preferably a second computer as well - the first one's rebuilding the universe because I fixed a typo in a common header of my C++ project.
Some tasks benefit from multiple displays. High end CAD / CAM / CAE very clearly do, as one example. Graphics, video production, simulation, visualization, are all potentials for similar reasons.
One thing I find extremely annoying in the Windows window manager is this idea of click to focus to top in order to do just about anything. On IRIX, the 4DWM window manager allowed a quick highlight, cut, paste, copy operation without actually bringing the window forward. The same is true for text input. Options like this are available in many *nix + X Window system window managers. They rock hard.
Couple that with virtual desktops, and it was entirely possible to have a ton of things going on, have them well organized, task switch with relative ease and manipulate and move information in various ways, often across applications, with a minimum of focus and context changes. There are times when I would leave the IRIX box logged in for weeks at a time as several complex tasks got worked through. Just pile 'em on virtual desktops and switch as makes sense.
Windows 8 moved away from this and toward very rigid window management schemes, and it's a significant loss when operated as intended. One can still get to the desktop and carefully avoid the massive context changes associated with metro and do OK.
But I have to ask, "why?"
I get it on tablets and phones. However, my Samsung Note 4 actually does a window / icon display and I've often used it to have several things displayed at once with the intent of using information from several different things at once to get a task done not unlike how I would have done it on 4DWM. Spiffy, if you ask me!
Doing this on an Android that really doesn't have any window capability is crazy! Lots of context switches, and lots of interactions needed for tasks that might otherwise just be a few. I find that aspect of Android and the Metro UX paradigm crippling.
Where these ugly things are in play, using more than one display is basically buying a window and all that goes with having multiple windows. Doesn't have to go that way, and I would argue, shouldn't as a default for computing.
There is a trend toward minimalism going on. I'm not sure it's to our benefit.
Yeah, instead it's all the time :)
If you want to get used to working with one screen, that's perfectly sensible, but there's no need to force yourself to use only one screen all the time. You can simply get used to both environments - and I say this as someone who works with two 20" monitors and is now typing on his personal 12" laptop on a coffee shop.
I get to move around all the time and sit in different positions and can just grab the thing and tether off my phone for a bit. Thursday I went and sat in Kew Gardens (£62/year for an office with a nice view!).
The lack of fatigue and general wellbeing that comes with this flexibility has been orders of magnitude more productive than window layouts.
Everything is just full screen with alt-tabing. I have open Outlook, two word docs, one excel sheet, 6 visual studio instances, hyper-v manager, PuTTY, Paint.net, about 40 FF tabs, keepassx and PowerShell ISE.
The only time I hit the desktop machine is when I need to frig a large image.
Note: The only negative is bird shit.
Next step will be to a 32"+ 4k monitor and I can't imagine needing much more than that for a long time.
I moved away from two screens with OpenBox because the window juggling was still killing me. Having two screens didn't cut it down that much, and tapping two keys to switch desktops and move apps in front of me is a lot simpler and quicker than translating between screens.
(At work I really only need to see one window most of the time. At home I do more stuff that requires multiple windows, but I use a tiling window manager which helps get the most out of the first monitor before needing to add the second one into the equation.)
Actually I use two monitors and laptop screen, so in total three monitors and on each I tab between several applications.
The NY Times should do some basic fact checking before publishing op-eds like this :-(
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1700/do-bigger-o...
I was honestly expecting this to be a study, some sort of university eye-tracking experiment that had some evidence. Instead I got:
> I turned off the extra screen on my desktop computer...I found something increasingly elusive in our multiscreen world: focus...I have no research proving you’ll find as much benefit from a single monitor as I did.
Oh, ok.
> While extra monitors might increase productivity in certain situations — the sort of situations that can be easily tested in a research setting — they seem to do so at a high cost, by displaying a stream of digital splendors, constantly vying for your attention.
Or, perhaps the sort of situations where the user is trying to be productive? "Digital splendors"? If you're using your second (or third, what have you) monitor for fucking YouTube videos, no, you're not going to be magically more productive.
Then we have the biggest non sequitur I've seen in "print":
> ...people using a dual-display machine to do a text-editing task were 44 percent more productive than those who used a single monitor.
Good so far.
> But for most people, the time spent juggling two windows or scrolling across large documents isn’t the biggest bottleneck in getting work done. Instead, there’s a more basic, pernicious reason you feel constantly behind — you’re getting distracted.
Yes, being distracted can indeed be bad. We haven't established why dual monitors would inherently create distractions though.
> Studies show that office workers are interrupted every four to 11 minutes by external distractions including phone calls, email and people who stop by your desk to chat about the weekend.
Phone calls, the number of emails you receive and people coming over to your desk is not going to change with additional monitors. These distractions lay outside the domain of the concern of a second monitor's impact on productivity.
> Then there are self-motivated distractions, when, for no apparent reason, you quit working on your project and do something else — for instance, jump into the rabbit hole of the web.
Which can be done just as readily with a single monitor.
> “The second screen can also be an inviting entry-way for self-distraction,” Ms. Mark said. That’s because it’s an ever-present, available canvas calling out for you to fire up a web window and find solace in the latest thrills on YouTube.
Is your second monitor an empty "canvas"? Listen, if you're going to visit YouTube, you're going to do that with or without 2, 3 or 4 monitors.
Anyhow, this reads like click bait, I think I've spent too more time critiquing the article than the author spent writing it. As a front end engineer, and with 2 Thuderbolts and 1 Macbook Pro, I use all my screens to their maximum potential. This morning while working on our public site I had my localhost site running fullscreen on one thunderbolt, my code in vim running on the other, and the photoshop comp on the Macbook. When strictly in JS mode I'll typically have the same setup but docs or gitx running on the laptop.
If you're choosing to be distracted, no, a second monitor isn't going to somehow change that.
However, I find OS X's animations between screens distracting. I wish there was a way to instantly switch between screens, without the animation.
Early Linux had these F1 F2 macros that would allow you to jump between terminals. That's what I want on my Mac.
Also I want 16GB on my MB Air, but that is another story.
Using http://focusr.co exclusively on a second screen has been effective at getting me to focus.
First of all, I'd say his argument is perhaps less applicable if you're a programmer. If all you're using a word processor and a browser, then maybe you can get by. If you're doing programming and designing, and need a couple of applications as well as a few terminal windows — then maybe it's not so applicable.
However, I do find this subject matter really interesting. I've been thinking and observing about this a lot just this last year, and I think it's not so much about screens as it is how poorly most people use computers.
I think the main productivity killer is the cursor and how people do window management: focusing an app, resizing, moving, shifting screens and so on.
As an example, say you as a professional need to use three applications, and most of the time you use these applications in a maximized state — taking up most of the screen space.
Now, if you want to shift attention between these applications, there are a couple of alternatives. You could alt-tab, which is imprecise and slow, since you have to mentally go through the alt-tab stack of applications and find the one you're looking for. Of course, you can use alt-tab to toggle between two specific windows, but if you slip up and press it twice then you bring focus to some other application. It's just not really a good way of switching windows.
Another way is of course to use some graphical element targeting a specific application. Maybe the bottom menu (the dock on OSX). This is also imprecise and tedious. Windows tries to fix this with having the order of the applications correlate to shortcuts. So the first one can be activated using Windows Key + 1, the second one with Windows Key + 2 etc. This still leaves you with the problem however that you lose state between toggling applications since your cursor isn't where you left it for that particular application. There's also not a good way of toggling between windows for an application: say you have two chrome windows, and you want to switch between them.
Or maybe you have multiple screens, and you now have to drag the cursor between the windows. Super slow and imprecise, and maybe the cursor even gets caught between the screens since one of them is in portrait mode and the other is in landscape — now you have to spend even more mental effort just to get it to where you want to go.
The way I've solved these issues — which has given me a huge productivity boost with a laptop in particular but it's also very tangible on desktop computers with multiple screens as well — is to create a really smart system to jump between applications where it remembers where the cursor was for that particular window, and if the cursor is in some nonsensical place when you jump to an application window then it's instead reset by centering on that particular window. It also uses a graphical element surrounding the cursor which shows for about half a second, so I don't have to spend any mental effort to find it. I also have a very nice system to manipulate windows which sort of works like Divvy where using the keyboard I can on the fly define a grid on the screen, and move or resize the focused window inside of that grid.
Using things like this makes it cerebral. I don't have to think, or spend mental effort targeting things. It's all super precise and I don't even think about windows and screens most of the time, it's all mechanics that have become invisible to me when I work.
I'd bet with this setup I'd be a lot more productive with one screen than someone with two screens without a similar setup.