Please .. I know you better than that .. If any survey unequivocably stated "this will improve productivity by 40%" or whatever, it would be immediately dismissed as it does not take into account any myriad of differences in applications, environment, people, and the task they are charged with doing. When making a blanket statement, the comments MUST be broad enough else they fail. An estimate of fuel economy is just that .. as estimate .. several factors can make the difference. We could drive the exact vehicle on the exact stretch of road and come away with vastly different fuel economys. You of all people should know that.
wait a minute, either the surveys support the increased productivity or they don't. An estimate is based on some data, any data. So far, every survey I've seen, including the summary you posted, has failed to provide such data because is "SEEMS" "OBVIOUS".
Once again, show me a survey that states there is NO productivity improvement by using multiple monitors and I will consider it a draw, since we both have opposing corroberating evidence.
I have no such survey, nor have I claimed one existed, and so far you have not supplied such evidence supporting your claim other than saying "isn't it obvious?"
You are dodging and we both know it ..
No dodge, I've never claimed any kind of survey existed either way. I'm just looking for one that shows any kind of improvement in productivity by methods other than "isn't it obvious"
in fact I believe the improvement is probably only in specialized applications and environments, I was merely stating a widely held belief,
And I have the audacity to question that "widely held belief".
Then you have convoluted the discussion. My point was not that muliple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys. Surveys that you choose to ignore. Fine .. but you cannot ignore the facts that it is a widely held belief .. which is EXACTLY what my comments were about, nothing more, nothing less.
I've always understood your point, that there are surveys that support the widely held belief. So far you have provided none.
and then I supplied the evidence you requested.
Not as yet.
You simply fail to recognize it when perhaps hundreds or thousands of others have. ... Your beef concerning the accuracy of the survey is with the survey company, not me.
I have no problem at all with the accuracy of a survey, especially those that couch their results in non-commital language like "seems obvious".. Support does not mean perpetuate. It's not that they are inaccurate, they just haven't displayed any foundation in real productivity research, they have provided no support. If there is a real productivity improvement, there will be numbers to back it up, otherwise we're left with feelings that it's obvious, which is not support.
I am not saying your assertion concerning productivity is wrong, only that your assertion that the survey states they improve productivity.
I've asked a couple of times for you to quote the line in the link you posted that states improved productivity. I've looked and can't find it. If it's there please post it.