Does More Than One Monitor Improve Productivity?

March 16, 2008

I've been a multiple monitor enthusiast since the dark days of Windows Millennium Edition. I've written about the manifold joys of many-monitor computing a number of times over the last four years:

I have three monitors at home and at work. I'm what you might call a true believer. I'm always looking for ammunition for fellow developers to claim those second (and maybe even third) monitors that are rightfully theirs under the Programmer's Bill of Rights.

Mac Pro triple monitor setup

So I was naturally intrigued when I read about a new multiple monitor study from the University of Utah:

Researchers at the University of Utah tested how quickly people performed tasks like editing a document and copying numbers between spreadsheets while using three different computer configurations:
  1. single 18-inch monitor
  2. single 24-inch monitor
  3. two 20-inch monitors

Here's what they found:

  • People using the 24-inch screen completed the tasks 52% faster than people who used the 18-inch monitor
  • People who used the two 20-inch monitors were 44% faster than those with the 18-inch ones.
  • Productivity dropped off again when people used a 26-inch screen.

I dug around a bit and found the actual study results (pdf) or something very close to it, if you're looking for more detail than the summary I've presented above. This isn't the first time the University of Utah has conducted a multiple monitor study. It's very similar to the multiple monitor survey they conducted in 2003, also under the auspices of NEC. I agree it's a little sketchy to cite a study from a display vendor that advocates-- surprise-- buying more and bigger displays. But bear in mind they did find diminishing productivity returns with 26 inch displays. This is something I personally experienced, and I dubbed it the The Large Display Paradox. That finding isn't exactly going to endear them to display vendors.

Patrick Dubroy took a skeptical look at the multiple monitor productivity claims and found several credible sources of data. I'll combine his finds with mine to provide a one-stop-shop for research data supporting the idea that, yes, having more display space would in fact make you more productive:

Patrick, despite his skepticism – and remember, this is a guy who didn't see a productivity difference between a 14 inch laptop display and a "big ass LCD" – came away convinced:

After looking at the studies, I think it's fair to say that some tasks can be made significantly faster if you have more screen real estate. On the other hand, I think it's clear that most programmers are not going to be 50% more productive over the course of a day just by getting a second monitor. The tasks that can be improved are not the bottleneck to programmer productivity.

I'm not sure what Patrick was expecting here. Let me be perfectly clear on this matter: more is more. More usable desktop space reduces the amount of time you spend on window management excise. Instead of incessantly dragging, sizing, minimizing and maximizing windows, you can do actual productive work. With a larger desktop, you can spend less time mindlessly arranging information, and more time interacting with and acting on that information. How much that matters to you will depend on your job and working style. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if I never had to size, position, or arrange another damn window for the rest of my life.

Choose own your path to happiness, whether it's upgrading to a single 30" display, dual 24" widescreen displays, or three standard 20" displays. As long as it results in more usable desktop space, it's a clear win. I support all of the above scenarios, and more importantly, the existing research does too. The price of a few monitors is negligible when measured against the labor cost of a programmer or information worker salary. Even if you achieve a meager two or three percent performance increase, it will have more than paid for itself.

What does get a little frustrating is when people claim that one large monitor should be "enough for anyone". This isn't a zero-sum game. Where there is one large monitor, there could be two large monitors, or three.

Sometimes, more is more.

Posted by Jeff Atwood
205 Comments

I'm not so sure about this. I think I'd find it hard to be splitting my attention between different monitors, it would give me a headache after a while. The ergonomics would be a bit tricky too, you'd need multi screen support and all sorts and not everyone has enough room for that. I think I'd be a bit too tempted to be looking at irrelevant sites on one of the other monitors too.

Jess on August 2, 2010 2:03 AM

I am thinking about my to test my new application http://www.spiralaxis.com/rental-property-management.htm using dual screen,and this point People who used the two 20-inch monitors were 44% faster than those with the 18-inch ones, so must research on it.

Kamransohail82 on October 9, 2010 8:17 AM

Seems I missed a great discussion!

Jeff, thanks for hosting.

Here's the most up-to-date research on multi-monitors, including photos of the best multi-monitor workspaces: http://www.kevinkane.com/2009/08/boost-productivity-52-and-save-2-5-hours-daily-with-multi-monitors/

Kevin Kane on October 13, 2010 6:17 PM

Jeff, looks like I missed a great discussion!

I gave my take on the four biggest multi-monitors studies at:
http://www.kevinkane.com/2009/08/boost-productivity-52-and-save-2-5-hours-daily-with-multi-monitors/

Though studies suggest that having more screen space enhances productivity, it is challenging to design studies that reliably measure the exact impact. Jakob Neilsen provides thoughtful input on measuring the relationship between productivity and screen size: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen-productivity.html

Great work!

Kevin

Kevin Kane on October 14, 2010 8:53 PM

I use 4 monitors. 2 24-inch, 2 20-inch. I also use virtual desktops (VirtuaWin provides a nice solution for windows). The two solve different problems. If you find the other monitors are distracting you, it's because you have the wrong things on them--those things should be on a different desktop.

A typical setup for me is this:

IDE/Editor maximized on a 24-inch monitor. Here I edit code and (if an IDE) kick off builds.
Command-line on a 20-inch monitor. Here I run auxilliary tools that don't integrate with my IDE, or run my actual code, or grep the code, etc. Very handy to have this always up front.
Firefox on another monitor (either size). Here I have documentation/examples.

And the final window runs various things--I might navigate windows explorer or display a diff.

Email goes on a different desktop, so it doesn't distract me. I also have my code reviews displayed there--it's my "communication desktop".

If I'm working on multiple projects, each goes on a separate desktop.

I occasionally find myself wishing for another monitor, but usually 4 is enough. The different sizes don't bother me as long as the bottoms are all lined-up. For me the more important thing is a thin, non-reflective border. Maybe I'd get over it, but when I've seen it, having a thick, reflective border between screens is distracting.

Nathan Henkel on January 13, 2011 11:40 AM

«Back

The comments to this entry are closed.