It would be multi-screen

-=®=-

I’ve been using dual displays for the most part since the Mac II days. Two displays around 20” or so works pretty well for type design. I use the main screen for the glyph and font windows with previews and other windows on the secondary screen. When I’m working in most other programs (Photoshop, Illustrator, web, etc.), I usually just use the main screen. I keep my email, calendar, and to-do list on the secondary screen.

I think larger screens would be even better, but I have noticed that if I am spending a lot of time doing something on the secondary screen, my neck starts to get sore, and I think larger screens would make this worse. Moving the keyboard, mouse and chair helps, but I don’t usually remember to do it. Sometimes I just move the window I’m working in to the main screen temporarily. I also sometimes think a single, very large screen (a 30-incher) would be better.

My main screen is a 21” Wacom Cintiq, which I’ve had for a couple of years. This is one of those tablet/screen hybrids with which you can draw directly on the surface with a stylus. I thought this would be the ultimate, best display for working on type and doing lettering, but my experience has been mixed. It works great for Photoshop and drawing in general, but not so great for editing fonts. It can’t match the precision of the mouse for making small movements. What I mean by this is that the on-screen cursor has a tendency to jiggle around, as if it can’t decide precisely which coordinate it’s on, even when you hold the stylus rock steady. This never happens with a mouse. Because of its size, figuring out where to put the keyboard when you’re using it to draw is a real puzzle, and you always need to be able to use the keyboard, even while drawing. There is a limit to how upright the display can go, so even in it’s most upright position, it’s fairly tilted back, and this causes a glare problem when you have overhead lighting. So, great idea, really fun to use, but problematic.

I wish I could afford 2 30” displays. I am currently working with a MacBook (13”) and an additional 19” display. (I am currently considering exchanging the 19” one with a 22 or 24” one.) I actually never worked with a multi screen setup of 2 or more displays. (Sadly enough, maybe. ;)

Dav(id)

I’ve got a 30 incher :^O and it’s fine for type design - I can see a character window and the preview panel. It’s a pretty big space to fit everything on. With Exposé on Mac it’s easy enough to toggle through different program windows, so I really can’t see the point of 2 displays (of that size).

Nick Cooke

A MBP with a 20” display in this set up. Having the metrics monitor above and the edit window beneath does lessen some strains :-)

Oh yes, I forgot to mention a chair and a desk :^)

Nick Cooke

I like the idea of putting the second display on top like that, above the Cintiq. I worry that our cats might knock it over. Still...

Here’s a photo of my desk:

Dual 22” displays, each running at 2048×1536, for a total display area of 4096×1536, and an effective resolution of 128PPI.

No LCDs for me; not even Trinitron/aperture-grille CRTs cut it. I use only good old shadow-mask CRTs — which, sadly, are getting really hard to find these days.

I like the idea of putting the second display on top like that, above the Cintiq. I worry that our cats might knock it over. Still...

Once you’ve tried it you won’t go back. And the cats ... maybe this wallpaper will do the trick :)

I have one big screen and a 6” x 8” Wacom Intuos.
I find the small tablet is useful, by minimizing arm movement.
I don’t have the wobble problem Mark does, with FontLab snap-to distance set at 3, which seems to be adequate.
The single screen is cluttered with palettes, but I’m used to it.

> maybe this wallpaper will do the trick

That would probably keep me away, too. :-)

I run one big 30 off a 17” laptop (closed mostly). If I need more real estate I open the laptop. But that is extremely rare.

You’d be a natural for Spaces in OSX 10.5 with productivity apps in one space and CS3 in the other. In that context, one big is definitely the way to go. And it doubles as a nicer TV :-)

 The ideal display for working in design or engineering is the 300+ dpi electronic-paper drafting table. Anyone care to guess when pressure-sensitive 18000×12000 resolution desks become available?
—Joel

Given the glacial pace of innovation in display technology, I wouldn’t expect desks like that for at least another 15 years.

Fifteen years ago, 640×480 displays were the norm, and displays running at up to 1024×768 weren’t uncommon. In 1993 I was using a 15” display running at 1280×1024 (~122PPI). Things have hardly changed since then.

That reminds me: I hope nobody is running 1280 x 1024 for design work!

The reason being is that of all the standard monitor resolutions, it is the only one that doesn’t match the aspect ratio of the screen. A “normal” (non widescreen) monitor is a 4:3 aspect ratio. But 1280x1024 is 5:4 aspect ratio. Only your software doesn’t know you’re running a non-standard aspect ratio, and all your work is subtly distorted compared to WYSIWYG.

Cheers,

T

Thomas - please clarify this... (i hope this doesn’t degenerate into the ppi debates of yore).

1) is there really any such thing as a “normal monitor” ?
2) most good monitors come with some adjustments for horizontal and vertical sizing.
3) i work on one machine that is set to 1280 x 1024 (its maximum resolution),
but the first thing i do on any monitor is draw a perfect square and circle, print them out, and measure the image on both screen and paper, and adjust accordingly. no problem.

that aside, my perfect set-up is no computer at all, pencil and paper.

but seriously, i do try and look at my work in progress on several different monitors for color and distortion. i’m mostly producing motion graphics, but for print i frequently print and compare same at various print settings.

also, i’m utterly dependent on the largest available tablet and pen for ergonomics and dexterity. i prefer an older wacom, without the new on-tablet side controls, which i find are too easily activated accidently. at a client’s office where i often work they gave me one of those and i had to disable those controls.

and while we’re on the topic, i’m discouraged that the new imacs and macbooks ship with glossy screens only. when low gloss flat screens came out it was such a relief to be free of unwanted reflections, and now in some bizarre act of consumer fetish manufacturing apple has decided that people want them. why would i want my screen display modulated by anything other than the image i’m working on ?
i urge anyone who feels the same way to submit a complaint to apple’s consumer feedback forum. perhaps if enough professionals complain they’ll get the message: non-gloss now !

Thomas: FWIW, back in 1993 when I was running at 1280×1024, I used my monitor’s controls to horizontally squeeze the display area to give me a perfect 1:1 pixel aspect ratio.

(My ~122PPI calculation above was based on the dimensions of my squeezed display.)