Hi-res Screens vs. Average Users

[Gongalong]

Hi folks,

 

Anyone else have a problem with the bigger hi-res screens vs. average users?

 

I find that whenever I spec one of these screens it often ends up with a mixed reception, as some will struggle with the size of text. Windows 7 has the facility to magnify the output (by 125% and 150%) but ironically SIMS doesn't support it and suffers from UI corruption.

 

Running in lower resolutions inevitably involves blurred output.

 

I have suggested that the users ensure they have an up-to-date eye test and wear glasses if required, but that doesn't get a great response.

 

Sorry, not a very coherent post, but is the only answer to buy big low-rest screens... and do such things exist?

 

TIA

[TechMonkey]

It's even worse when you have a hypochondriac on staff. In a week I changed resolution 4 times as she went from "That's lovely" to "I think it may be fuzzy" to "I think the monitor is giving me a headache can we change it". Even set it to 800x600 and she said I was being silly, but 1024x768 was too small. Had to keep smiling

[Chockster]

We've got a user with two 27" screens. They're set to 1280*1024 instead of 1900*1200. I don't know how she manages. It causes a lot of problems with some of the finance software we use too.

 

I'm also very jealous; I've only just got a second monitor myself here, and mine are only 1600*900.

[pete]

I ask them to use an existing computer with the particular model of screen for an hour.

 

Want a bigger screen? Fine - but you need to test drive it.

[FN-GM]

Nope not an issue here, only with projectors and 1280 x 1024 its an issue.

[localzuk]

I have suggested that the users ensure they have an up-to-date eye test and wear glasses if required, but that doesn't get a great response.

 

I'm afraid that this is the correct response to be making! If they can't read on the screen what you can, then their eyes need sorting. I used to use 1900x1600 on a 17" screen and I could read everything perfectly - so they should be able to as well (and my eyes are somewhat useless).

 

However, if they have an issue with it still, you'll just have to get a lower resolution monitor for them.

[sonofsanta]

Yes - we've been venting about this in our office recently. We have a sizeable fleet of 22" 1920x1080 monitors and whilst students are fine with them, certain members of staff struggle. The Windows DPI scaling works to a point, but invariably knackers one program or another - chiefly the printing of reports in Serco.

 

Setting the resolution lower a) looks godawful b) sticks to computer, not user, so annoys the next person who comes along.

 

I would have thought there was scope for a larger monitor with lower native res - 1600x900 say - but I struggle to find 1680x1050 at 22" anymore, and 16:10 was never that niche by comparison. Really we just need Windows to handle DPI scaling better than it does now.

[X-13]

I'm also very jealous; I've only just got a second monitor myself here, and mine are only 1600*900.

 

That's better than mine...

 

I have one at 1920x1080 and one at 1280x1024.

 

Also, I pushed 1280x1024 as the default resolution here. It caused a lot of problems with projectors and monitors if it was set higher. The actual problem was the refresh rate being too high, but you can't see the screen to change it.

[sonofsanta]

Happy news: turns out 1680 x 1050 22" monitors are no so heinously overpriced as they once were. Around £100 ex VAT.

 

If only they made one with an IPS panel and landscape/portrait rotation...