Re: FLASH: Multiple-monitor systems (long)

[Frederico]

On 1/21/00 7:08 PM, unique via

uniqueptd [dot] net

, said:


>I would like to know whether any of you regularly use more than one 

>monitor when

>working with Flash, and, if so, how you organize your work environment.


(from an earlier post)

<paste>

For myself, on five monitors (lower=17, 20, 17, upper=15, 15), I have the 

primary stage on the center screen, the tool palletes, libraries, 

resources, output inspector, etc, on the left screen, and the timeline 

editor on the right. On my upper monitors, I have the browser windows 

open for previews, so I can see the finished product in both IE and NN at 

the same time.  If the project has more than one movie that I need to see 

at a time, instead of tiling, I can move them up to the additional 

monitors, if the timeline is especially complex, I can rearrange as 

needed to spread the timeline editor across the two on top, or the three 

on the bottom, as needed.


Not only does this arrangement offer more space to view items without the 

need to constantly mouse around bring this window or that window forward 

(carpal tunnel stress, repetitive injury stress, additional neck and back 

and arm stress, simple frustration) , but it also further reduces delays 

in heady projects due to screen redraw times of large image files.  It 

also allows you to keep multiple monitor profiles via ColorSync, which 

lets you simulate varied monitor quality/type/size, without constantly 

changing the depth and resolution of your primary monitors, which can 

lead to progressive degradation issues of your VRAM and produce 

artifacts, screen redraw issues, etc.


Now, I could go on for a dozen paragraphs about how I have 

AppleScript-automated browser switching to allow preview in all versions 

2-5 for webpages, how it shifts to three versions of VirtualPC  

(95/98/NT), and allows preview in all the Wintel versions, IE, NN, Opera, 

etc, the fast switch to WebTV emulator, Lynx emulator, etc, easy 

incorporation of content creation tools (Flash, Freehand, PhotoShop, 

MediaCleanerPro, Quicktime, etc), into GoLive or DreamWeaver, but all 

that is just the obvious (IMHO) evolution of alpha-testing your work in 

as many simulated environments as you can before you send it to an 

interim server to beta-test on genuine hardware.


Further advantages to two and three monitors is having your auxillary 

apps open in background, either to the left or right for easier 

comparisons, drag'n'drop, etc, such as Freehand, Illustrator, PhotoShop, 

Quicktime editors, GoLive, DreamWeaver, FireWorks, etc.


You also gain a tremendous amount of real estate for posting PopUp 

windows and DropDrawers for fast access to common resources.


Also, when you are new to a program, running through onscreen tutorials 

is almost tollerable by having the tutorial open on one screen, and the 

application on another, or when you need to access help files, or when 

you need to view a project outline, so you can read and do at the same 

time, without having to print and collate a manual.


More benefits roll on, such as displaying System monitoring tools like 

Peek'a'Boo, Purge, CPU temp, network activity, disk activity, instant 

message windows, email browsers, video conferencing windows, resource 

folder popup windows, etc, all in background but still in view while you 

do your work.


Much of the above is exceptionally handy when you are trying to 

troubleshoot faulty application behavior, and, for us, corroborating on 

projects via telecommute, also employing Remote Access, so that users can 

share/view screens across TCP/IP, and video/audio conference at the same 

time.


The benefits roll on, such as sharing the monitors, mice, drawing tabs, 

trackballs and keyboards with additional Macs, Wintel and Linux boxes, so 

that you don't have to repeat like-hardware and setup space for your beta 

hardware.


Anyway, the bottom line in any profitable enterprise is productivity, 

i.e., getting the most done in the least amount of time, so that you can 

earn the most and relax more (and don't forget reduced physical and 

mental  stress, and the associated costs). Our studies and experience 

show that productivity is increased by as much as 130% in many functions 

just by having a second monitor, and, while each additional monitor 

doesn't return nearly that much productivity, it never stops adding 

benefit. If you consider an average hourly rate of $75, and weigh that 

against the $100-$300 required for each additional monitor (used v new, 

including video card), and factor in an increase in billable production, 

it only takes a week or two, a month at most for each new screen to pay 

for itself.


Remember, you don't have to spend $1000 on each extra monitor, and you 

don't have to get a $600 video card to drive it. In the beginning, the 

idea is to create more workspace for simple things like tools and and 

resources, thereby increasing production and reducing stress and 

frustration. As you become more profitable, you can spring for better 

cards, better monitors, etc, but, you will always want at least one cheap 

piece of crap monitor and slow card around to reflect what the majority 

of low-end users will be seeing your work with.


Finally, as I said this here once before, I'd take two decent 17" 

monitors, or even two  good15" monitors over a single 22" monitor any 

day, because you get more pixels, more real estate, and more flexiblity 

to alter display to your needs without disturbing your primary work space 

or preview space.  

</paste>


Frederico


~ If they can make penicillin out of moldy bread, 

                      they can sure make something out of you.~

     

                                     -- Muhammad Ali


Think X



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email

helpchinwag [dot] com