I know some people like to go for really big monitors, but for website design, you don't want to go to big. You want to get a good indecation of what a user would see.

I personaly use a 22" as my main monitor, but have a 15" that I use to test layouts as well. It helps to spot any bugs that might pop up due to different screen sizes. I know we try to work out layouts nice and fluid, but it doesnt always work :)

My setup has the 22" on my work area, with the 15" mounted above. I just use a duel head video cars and extend my desktop onto the 15".

Mack.

edit typo

[edited by: mack at 7:22 pm (utc) on Feb 19, 2010]

That's basically what I do except for the dual video card. I design things on what were once expensive Sony and Mitsubishi CRT monitors with very fine dot pitches below .24. The deals seem to be on the 23" flat screen monitors many just 10 dollars more than the 21". Best DP I've been able to find with flat screen is .265.

I use 24" 1920x1200 for normal development. Really nice to open windows side by side and the large width shows me even long source lines on only one screen line in my full-screen editor. The 1920 width is also good to spot strange behavior of fluid designs on very wide screens. Sometimes fluid doesn't perform well on really wide screens because the eye is not used to read wide texts.

Besides that I use an older 14" 1024x768 laptop and sometimes a 13" laptop 800x600 for testing on "normal" screen sizes.

My laptop for on the road is 15.6" with 1366x768 which is adequate for making changes while I am not in the office.

I used a 19" 1280x1024 in the past for development, but it is now attached to the kids' computer. Height is nice, but it is more difficult to use multiple applications simultaneously.

Just one advice: go for digital, either HDMI or DVI. High resolution screens don't perform well with an analog VGA connection. Edges are not sharp and you easily get an headache after some hours of work.

Appreciate all the input. I think I'll go with a 23" 1920 x 1080(native and maximum) glass like display. I'll remember the cabling because I want that sharpness.

My 19" monitor has both VGA and DVI inputs. I first used it with a VGA cable but couldn't work at it for more than a few hours. After I added a DVI video card the same monitor suddenly performed much better. Better colors, sharper edges and no sense of flickering anymore. It was really worth the extra $100 or so I spend on the card and the cable.

2 20 inch.

the rule on monitors is the biggest and most you can afford :-)

Actually what catches my eye first is the dot pitch and only the CRT's can still give you that. Brand and best value fall into that also. I'm going to have to get out to computer shows to pick up some of those old CRT's. A key figure to me is .24 or below which I haven't seen in any flat screens. I'd say what I'm looking at but I think that is prohibited in these forums.

It was really worth the extra $100 or so I spend on the card and the cable.

The monitor comes with what you mentioned but customer reviews for many monitors claim the included cabling is junk so you need to buy your own.

After I added a DVI video card the same monitor suddenly performed much better. Better colors, sharper edges and no sense of flickering anymore.

Those are the nuances I enjoy hearing about.

It is essential to get the dot pitch right if you plan to do design work. The notional default dot pitch is 96dpi in Windows - you should not stray too far from this figure. For a 1920 * 1080 monitor that's about 22 inches.

Any HDMI cable should be adequate.
Shiny may look nice in the shop, but I would always choose matt (anti-glare).

Kaled.

I run 4 monitors. [twitpic.com...]
I use the middle two the most. The 3rd one on the far left is mostly for twitter/facebook/skype/oovoo noise makers. The far right one is mostly extra that I use for temp holders of extra browser views.

I don't think there is a 'sweet' spot monitor for web development.

Shiny may look nice in the shop, but I would always choose matt (anti-glare).

I remember when LCDs were getting affordable we all loved them because they didn't glare!

So now they are making LCDs with shiney screens that glare like crazy?!? why!?

This is one of the few shiney screens that doesn’t seem to overdo it. The glass finish does seem to enhance the sharpness somewhat but there is a trade-off with the reflections. I am cognizant of that because of implants. Hence using the old CRT's with the ultra fine pitch and less glare. In other words I could end up tossing flat screens quickly because the natural eye has better anti-reflective capabilities. It is only lately I like a few of any of the flat-screens. They’re all a little to blurry for my taste. Also because of wiring problems I've blown two monitors in two months which good be a blessing.

Kaled I gave a lot of thoughts to your comments because I exceed that 96 dpi in Windows. I have no doubt you are right and will revaluate.

I justify the change because I also believe there is no true sweet spot as Brett mentioned.

Also many major brands make as many as 600+ adjustments to Windows before it even arrives on the customer’s doorstep, so that setting is one that gets exaggerated. As one engineer explained to me the Windows adjustments are made so the display is as visually pleasing to the largest audience without the customer having to make any adjustments. In other words they stressed less adjustments transfer to a much lower return rate than a simple install. Also repeat business. On occasion I have seen techs install Windows that was horrid. I call it true Windows.