Advice On A New Monitor.

Somewhere on the interweb "kony" typed:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:36:29 +1300, "~misfit~"
> <misfit61nz@yahooligans.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Somewhere on the interweb "kony" typed:
> >
> >
> > [large amount of snippage]
> >
> > > Something else less often mentioned is to be sure that the
> > > monitor has the height and angle adjustments you will need
> > > based on your (desk?) worksurface height, chair height, and
> > > your eye-level height. A monitor that is too short might be
> > > put on a pedestal of some sort but ideally not. If the
> > > angle adjustment can't allow a direct 90 degree angle from
> > > your eyes to the screen surface, it can significantly effect
> > > contrast on many LCDs so having a large enough viewing angle
> > > for your use might be critical.
> >
> > Kony, what is the accepted wisdom as to monitor/eye level? I
> > remember reading once that you should have to look up slighly to
> > your monitor for best posture/long-term comfort. That anything
> > below eye-level is bad for posture etc. I have my monitor on a
> > large up-turned wooden bowl so that it's higher than desk height.
> > However, eye level is still not the center of the screen, more like
> > the top quarter.
> >
> > What say you? <g>
> >
> > Cheers,
>
> At one point I thought the recommended ergo position was
> that the eye level be slightly above the center of the
> monitor, but that it was not critical as a person who's
> going to slouch will have to instead maintain proper torso
> and neck alignment regardless of whether their eyes have to
> look a few degrees up or down, but it should be eyes instead
> of neck bending to make up the difference and so I tend to
> agree a slightly above-eye-level monitor would tend to
> promote better posture. How many people really have good
> posture all the time though? I would suspect it's more
> common in an office than home environment but that due to
> the typical monitor and desk heights in the market, most
> people are looking downward a bit and placing too much
> stress on their neck unless semi-reclining in their chair.

Right. I'm an invalid due to compression fractures of the lumbar vertabrae
and spend a lot of time in front of my PC, hence the question. I used to
have a chair that reclined and found it quite good. However, it broke and
when I looked to replace it I realised I could pay more for a good chair
than a good PC. Which wouldn't be a problem if I had the money. :-)

> As D.N.S.M. mentioned, having no discomfort after the
> required usage period is a reasonable sign the height is ok.

Yeah, excellent point. The problem is, I have _constant_ "discomfort" of my
whole spinal column, knowing whether a small percentage of it is caused by
the monitor position is difficult. ;-)

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:35:22 +1300, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahooligans.co.nz> wrote:


>Right. I'm an invalid due to compression fractures of the lumbar vertabrae
>and spend a lot of time in front of my PC, hence the question. I used to
>have a chair that reclined and found it quite good. However, it broke and
>when I looked to replace it I realised I could pay more for a good chair
>than a good PC. Which wouldn't be a problem if I had the money. :-)
>
>> As D.N.S.M. mentioned, having no discomfort after the
>> required usage period is a reasonable sign the height is ok.
>
>Yeah, excellent point. The problem is, I have _constant_ "discomfort" of my
>whole spinal column, knowing whether a small percentage of it is caused by
>the monitor position is difficult. ;-)

Your needs may not necessarily coincide with someone else's.
IIRC, generally the idea for most people is to have a
straight spine supporting all their weight vertically
instead of being supported by the chair, but in your case I
would wonder if trying to remove some of that weight would
be better... something your doctor could best advise on.