A Comparison between Single and Dual Monitor Productivity and the Effects of Window Management Styles on Performance

  • Alex Stegman
  • Chen Ling
  • Randa Shehab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6772)


Several research studies have been published on user opinion and productivity of using dual monitor systems. These studies found that users typically enjoy using multiple monitors, but none found a strong increase in performance and productivity. Other researchers have focused on improving multiple monitor usability, but often without any statistical framework. This study compared single and dual monitor productivity measures: task time, cursor movement, and number of window switches. Additionally, window management styles (WMS) were studied in order to help designers understand user behavior better. WMS were broken into two categories, toggler and resizer, and then compared to the WMS created by Kang and Stasko (2008). The results of the research showed a significant difference between the number of open applications and a significant difference between single and dual monitors for the number of window switches. The only significant difference between the toggler and resizer WMS was the number of window switches, which was an interaction between the styles and the tasks.


Dual Monitors Window Management Style Productivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ashdown, M., Oka, K., Sato, Y.: Combining Head Tracking and Mouse Input for a GUI on Multiple Monitors. Computer Human Interatcion- Extended Abstracts (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey, B., Konstan, J., Carlis, J.: Measuring the Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance in the User Interface. IEEE, 757–762 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Card, S., Moran, T., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Covin, J., Tobler, N., Anderson, J.A.: Productivity and multi-screen displays. Rocky Mountain Comm. Review, Dept. Comm. Univ. Utah  2(1), 31–53 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czerwinski, M., Smith, G., Regan, T., Meyers, B., Robertson, G., Starkweather, G.: Toward characterizing the productivity benefits of very large displays. In: Proceedings of Interact 2003, pp. 9–16 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grudin, J.: Partitioning Digital Worlds: Focal and Peripheral Awareneness in Multiple Monitor Use. In: Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction 2002, pp. 458–465 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hutchings, D., Stasko, J.: New operations for display space management and window management. GVU Techinical Report GIT-GVU, pp. 2-18 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hutchings, D., Czerwinski, M., Smith, G., Meyers, B., Robetson, G.: Display space usage and window management operation comparisons between single monitor and multiple monitor users. In: Proceedings of AMI 2004, pp. 32–39 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchings, D.R., Stasko, J.: Mudibo: Multiple Dialog Boxes for Multiple Monitors. In: Proceedings of Computer-Human Interaction 2005 Extended Abstracts, pp. 1471–1474 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutchings, D. R., Stasko, J.: Revisited display space management: understanding current practice to inform next generation design. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface, pp. 127–134 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaschinski, W., Heuer, H., Kylian, H.: Preferred position of visual displays relative to the eyes: A field study of visual strain and individual differences. Ergonomics 41(7), 1034–1049 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jon Peddie Research (2008), 2008 CAD report, http://www.jonpeddie.com/publications/cad_report/
  13. 13.
    Kang, Y., Stasko, J.: Lightweight task/application performance using Single versus Multiple monitors: A comparative study. In: Proceedings of the Graphics Interface (2008), pp. 17–24 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mackinlay, J.D., Heer, J.: Wideband Displays: Mitigating Multiple Monitor Seams. In: Proceedings of Computer-Human Interaction Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ringel, M.: When one isn’t enough: an analysis of virtual desktop usage strategies and their implication for design. In: Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction Extended Abstracts 2003, pp. 762–763 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robertson, G., Czerwinski, M., Baudisch, P., Meyers, B., Robbins, D., Smith, G., Tan, D.: The Large-Display User Experience, pp. 44–51. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    St. John, M., Harris, W., Osga, G.A.: Designing for multitasking environments: Multiple monitors versus multiple windows. Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 41, 1313–1317 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    St. John, M., Manes, D.I., Oonk, H.M., Ko, H.: Workspace Control Diagrams and Head-Mounted Displays as Alternative to Multiple Monitors in Information-Rich Environments. In: Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tan, D.S., Czerwinski, M.: Effects of visual separation and physical continuities when distributing information across multiple displays. In: Proceedings of INTERACT, pp. 252–265 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tullis, T., Albert, B.: Measuring the user experience. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Valleta, R.: Computer use and the U.S. Wage Distribution, 1984-2003. FRBSF Working Paper 2006-34, pp. 32-39 (October 2006) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Stegman
    • 1
  • Chen Ling
    • 1
  • Randa Shehab
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Oklahoma, NormanNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations