multiple screens vs. one big one was Re: Text file description of GUI...

If I can add just a little note to that...

In the computer world, it's a "you get what you pay for" deal. If you
have a 14" monitor, you might do alot of squinting. That's why 21's
cost more than just the additional materials required to make one.
This of course applies to CPU's and well most everything capitalist.
However, CNC controls depart from this logic because often the
replacement monitor is mounted on a suspended arm (ie..pendant) where
the original was only 8-10" (so 15 is a big jump up). or mounted very
close by a very messy and/or wet machine to run a single program.
Either way, a monitor designated for a machine control
unlike "general computing" tends to point towards smaller (and
perhaps more readily replaceable) sizes.
Of course, we can't expect the developers to squint at code all day
on a 10, or 15" monitor while writing the app, but I think that once
it's looking great on their programming system, that they forget what
sort of display it will most likely end up on.
This is of course a very natural thing for a developer (or anyone) to
do. We're just trying to bring this gap to light.

Sean

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "ballendo" <ballendo@y...> wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> Think of it this way: You can see a movie on a drive-in screen, a
> movie theatre screen, your television, or your mediaplayer window.
>
> Now let's say the movie has some information you need to read
easily
> (a product placement "ad" you paid big bucks for<G>). On the large
> screens, you can easily do this. On the smaller screens you can't
see
> things very clearly...
>
> So what Sean and I are saying is that we would rather see "less" on
> EACH screen (of a multiple screen interface), so that each "part"
ON
> that screen can be larger. (like commercial controls)
>
> Compared to the other two options currently available on PC-based
> controllers: All on one screen, better have a big monitor, or VERY
> good eyes. OR, All on one screen, but we only get to see part of
that
> screen. (Since our screen resolution is smaller than the screen was
> designed for.)
>
> For example, In Master5, it is all on one screen, so with a small
> monitor(assuming the small monitor can EVEN DO 1024x768!), it is
like
> watching the movie on a tiny tv (or, since Art has included scroll
> bars when screen resolution is less than 1024x768; it becomes
similar
> to looking at the large movie screen through the cut out bottom of
> a "cereal" box...(only seeing part at a time)
>
> So it's a question of "requiring" a large screen to be functional,
> vs. "allowing" a large screen to be more useful.
>
> When you change/increase the screen settings on your computer
> monitor, you are doing it for one of two reasons (or both):
> 1)To make each object bigger. 2)To fit "more" objects into your
view.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Ballendo
>
> P.S. I had asked Art during the "early days" to use 640x480 in his
> design, but he said he "needed" 1024x768. Maybe If I had understood
> the reason he wanted it was because he was putting everything on
one
> screen, I could have "made my case" differently.
>
> At any rate, numerous "usability" studies have shown that multiple
> screens are less likely to result in errors of input(and mistakes
in
> interpretation of output); which is certainly a concern for this
> product (a cnc control).
>
>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Carlos Guillermo" <carlos@v...> wrote:
> > Huh? I'm confused. Didn't we solve this problem a long time ago
> > with VB, Visual C, etc.? I thought somewhere there was
> > functionality that could just take everything and scale it to fit
> > in a certain size window. I mean, somewhere within windows, there
> > is knowledge of the screen size and/or resolution, or you couldn't
> > "maximize" your windows. Wouldn't this make more sense than
> > trying to pick one size to fit all?
> >
> > Carlos Guillermo
> > VERVE Engineering & Design
> >