Skip to main content

Computer Screen Size, Revisited

Late last year, I wrote that laptop screen size is not itself a requirement, but that the real requirements are on usability and productivity when using the computer. A large screen size is one of the most effective ways of enhancing such usability and productivity. I have always favored laptops with large screen sizes for this reason.

Now, Apple has the results of a study comparing productivity when using its 30-inch external monitor versus using a smaller 17-inch monitor. Among the major conclusions:
  • Computer displays are a widely overlooked productivity factor of the personal computer, and they can contribute significantly to productivity, efficiency, and overall throughput.
  • Productivity and efficiency gains documented in these productivity measures are present in not only digital imaging and design applications, but also in office applications as well as in personal productivity of the computing environment.
  • A larger display area often results in new productivity strategies that make best use of the display in ways that one cannot easily imagine when working on a smaller display.
What is significant about these findings? The main significance is in its exposing how the emphasis on faster processors is misplaced. Instead of just worrying about feature specs, your product manager should be focusing on what really impacts users.

Comments

bob said…
What can we learn? That Apple wisely realized that you can't show faster CPU as easily as you can show Bigger Screen. By quoting "research" that purports to prove the productivity advantages of a large screen, they try to associate business benefit to something that will help them drive the ASP of the iMac line up and up.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the