20 inch lcd panel price free sample

Click calculate to find the energy consumption of a 22 inch LED-backlit LCD display using 30 Watts for 5 hours a day @ $0.10 per kWh. Check the table below and modify the calculator fields if needed to fit your display.

Price (kWh): Enter the cost you are paying on average per kilowatt hour, our caculators use the default value of 0.10 or 10 cents. To find an exact price check your electricity bill or take a look at Global Electricity Prices.

LED & LCD screens use the same TFT LCD (thin film transistor liquid crystal display) technology for displaying images on the screen, when a product mentions LED it is referring to the backlighting. Older LCD monitors used CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent) backlighting which is generally 20-30% less power efficient compared to LED-backlit LCD displays.

Laptop Screens & LCD Panels└ Laptop Replacement Parts└ Computer Components & Parts└ Computers/Tablets & NetworkingAll CategoriesAntiquesArtBabyBooks & MagazinesBusiness & IndustrialCameras & PhotoCell Phones & AccessoriesClothing, Shoes & AccessoriesCoins & Paper MoneyCollectiblesComputers/Tablets & NetworkingConsumer ElectronicsCraftsDolls & BearsMovies & TVEntertainment MemorabiliaGift Cards & CouponsHealth & BeautyHome & GardenJewelry & WatchesMusicMusical Instruments & GearPet SuppliesPottery & GlassReal EstateSpecialty ServicesSporting GoodsSports Mem, Cards & Fan ShopStampsTickets & ExperiencesToys & HobbiesTravelVideo Games & ConsolesEverything Else

According to service duration: Splits your availability into time slots that match the duration of the service. For example, 20 minute services will split your available time into 20-minute slots.

Many service prices may vary depending on the client and the service duration. Pricing options allow you to control how a service’s price is displayed to a prospective client during online booking. Your options:

In the United States,1 the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) provides eligible students with free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). The percentage of students in a school who are eligible provides a substitute measure for the concentration of low-income students. In this Fast Fact, public schools2 (including both traditional and charter) are divided into categories by FRPL eligibility.3 Low-poverty schools are defined as public schools where 25.0 percent or less of the students are eligible for FRPL. Mid-low poverty schools are those where 25.1 to 50.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL. Mid-high poverty schools are those where 50.1 to 75.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL. High-poverty schools are those where more than 75.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL. In fall 2019, about 12.3 million students attended high-poverty schools.

In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students in high-poverty schools was greater than the percentage in low-poverty schools (24 vs. 20 percent). Both of these percentages varied by race/ethnicity. Compared to the national average, higher percentages of Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Pacific Islander students attended mid-high4 and high-poverty schools. For example, the percentage of students who attended high-poverty schools was highest for Black students (45 percent), followed by Hispanic students (43 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native students (37 percent), Pacific Islander students (25 percent), students of Two or more races (17 percent), Asian students (14 percent), and White students (8 percent). At the other end of the school poverty spectrum, a nearly opposite pattern is evident. The percentage of students who attended low-poverty schools was highest for Asian students (40 percent), followed by White students (30 percent), students of Two or more races (24 percent), Pacific Islander students (12 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native students (8 percent), Hispanic students (8 percent), and Black students (7 percent).

NOTE: Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Low-poverty schools are defined as public schools where 25.0 percent or less of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL); mid-low poverty schools are those where 25.1 to 50.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL; mid-high poverty schools are those where 50.1 to 75.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL; and high-poverty schools are those where more than 75.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL. Data include students whose NSLP eligibility has been determined through direct certification, which is a �process conducted by the states and by local educational agencies (LEAs) to certify eligible children for free meals without the need for household applications� (https://www.fns.usda.gov/direct-certification-national-school-lunch-program-report-congress-state-implementation-progress-1). For more information on eligibility for FRPL and its relationship to poverty, see the NCES blog post �Free or reduced price lunch: A proxy for poverty?� Schools with missing FRPL data are not included in this figure. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding and because schools with missing FRPL data are not included in this figure. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.

The percentage of students attending public schools with different poverty concentrations varied by school locale (i.e., city, suburban, town, and rural). In fall 2019, about 40 percent of students who attended city schools were in high-poverty schools, which was greater than the percentage who attended town schools (20 percent), suburban schools (18 percent), and rural schools (15 percent). This pattern held across racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of American Indian/Alaska Native students. A higher percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students attended high-poverty schools in rural areas (46 percent) than in cities (37 percent) and other locales. Meanwhile, the percentage of students who attended low-poverty schools was highest for students who attended suburban schools (31 percent), followed by students who attended rural schools (19 percent), city schools (13 percent), and town schools (9 percent). The percentage of students who attended low-poverty schools was highest for students in suburban areas for all racial/ethnic groups except Asian students. The percentage of Asian students who attended low-poverty schools was highest in rural areas.

2 In fall 2019, information on school poverty level was not available for less than 1 percent of public school students. This included schools for which information on FRPL was missing and schools that did not participate in the NSLP.

3 Students with household incomes under 185 percent of the poverty threshold are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under the NSLP. In addition, some groups of children—such as foster children, children participating in the Head Start and Migrant Education programs, and children receiving services under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act—are assumed to be categorically eligible to participate in the NSLP. Data include students whose NSLP eligibility has been determined through direct certification, which is a �process conducted by the states and by local educational agencies (LEAs) to certify eligible children for free meals without the need for household applications� (https://www.fns.usda.gov/direct-certification-national-school-lunch-program-report-congress-state-implementation-progress-1). Also, under the Community Eligibility option, some nonpoor children who attend school in a low-income area may participate if the district decides that it would be more efficient to provide free lunch to all children in the school. For more information, see https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Concentration of Public School Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved June 21, 2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clb.

DaVinci Resolve color panels let you adjust multiple parameters at once so you can create unique looks that are impossible with a mouse and keyboard. The incredibly small DaVinci Resolve Micro Panel is great for new colorists just getting started or anyone that needs a portable panel. It features 3 high quality trackballs, knobs for primary adjustment controls and buttons for playback and navigation. The DaVinci Resolve Mini Panel features additional controls and screens for accessing virtually all palettes and tools. For the ultimate in control, the DaVinci Resolve Advanced Panel gives high end professional colorists access to every single feature and command mapped to a specific button! Learn More

The best creative tools shouldn’t be limited to Hollywood. That’s why there’s a free version of DaVinci Resolve, so you can learn how to use the same tools that professional Hollywood artists use. DaVinci Resolve is designed to inspire creativity so you can focus on doing your best work. Once you learn the software and start using it for more work, you can purchase DaVinci Resolve Studio which adds tons of additional effects, 3D and more. Adding an editor keyboard, color control panel, or audio console lets you work even faster because you can use both hands at the same time, allowing you to be more creative and do things that are impossible with a mouse!

Includes everything in the free version plus the DaVinci Neural Engine, dozens of additional Resolve FX, temporal and spatial noise reduction, stereoscopic 3D, film grain, optical blur and mist effects, and more. It also supports 10‑bit video at up to 120 frames per second and resolutions beyond 4K.

A thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal display (TFT LCD) is a variant of a liquid-crystal display that uses thin-film-transistor technologyactive matrix LCD, in contrast to passive matrix LCDs or simple, direct-driven (i.e. with segments directly connected to electronics outside the LCD) LCDs with a few segments.

In February 1957, John Wallmark of RCA filed a patent for a thin film MOSFET. Paul K. Weimer, also of RCA implemented Wallmark"s ideas and developed the thin-film transistor (TFT) in 1962, a type of MOSFET distinct from the standard bulk MOSFET. It was made with thin films of cadmium selenide and cadmium sulfide. The idea of a TFT-based liquid-crystal display (LCD) was conceived by Bernard Lechner of RCA Laboratories in 1968. In 1971, Lechner, F. J. Marlowe, E. O. Nester and J. Tults demonstrated a 2-by-18 matrix display driven by a hybrid circuit using the dynamic scattering mode of LCDs.T. Peter Brody, J. A. Asars and G. D. Dixon at Westinghouse Research Laboratories developed a CdSe (cadmium selenide) TFT, which they used to demonstrate the first CdSe thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal display (TFT LCD).active-matrix liquid-crystal display (AM LCD) using CdSe TFTs in 1974, and then Brody coined the term "active matrix" in 1975.high-resolution and high-quality electronic visual display devices use TFT-based active matrix displays.

The circuit layout process of a TFT-LCD is very similar to that of semiconductor products. However, rather than fabricating the transistors from silicon, that is formed into a crystalline silicon wafer, they are made from a thin film of amorphous silicon that is deposited on a glass panel. The silicon layer for TFT-LCDs is typically deposited using the PECVD process.

The twisted nematic display is one of the oldest and frequently cheapest kind of LCD display technologies available. TN displays benefit from fast pixel response times and less smearing than other LCD display technology, but suffer from poor color reproduction and limited viewing angles, especially in the vertical direction. Colors will shift, potentially to the point of completely inverting, when viewed at an angle that is not perpendicular to the display. Modern, high end consumer products have developed methods to overcome the technology"s shortcomings, such as RTC (Response Time Compensation / Overdrive) technologies. Modern TN displays can look significantly better than older TN displays from decades earlier, but overall TN has inferior viewing angles and poor color in comparison to other technology.

Most TN panels can represent colors using only six bits per RGB channel, or 18 bit in total, and are unable to display the 16.7 million color shades (24-bit truecolor) that are available using 24-bit color. Instead, these panels display interpolated 24-bit color using a dithering method that combines adjacent pixels to simulate the desired shade. They can also use a form of temporal dithering called Frame Rate Control (FRC), which cycles between different shades with each new frame to simulate an intermediate shade. Such 18 bit panels with dithering are sometimes advertised as having "16.2 million colors". These color simulation methods are noticeable to many people and highly bothersome to some.gamut (often referred to as a percentage of the NTSC 1953 color gamut) are also due to backlighting technology. It is not uncommon for older displays to range from 10% to 26% of the NTSC color gamut, whereas other kind of displays, utilizing more complicated CCFL or LED phosphor formulations or RGB LED backlights, may extend past 100% of the NTSC color gamut, a difference quite perceivable by the human eye.

The transmittance of a pixel of an LCD panel typically does not change linearly with the applied voltage,sRGB standard for computer monitors requires a specific nonlinear dependence of the amount of emitted light as a function of the RGB value.

In-plane switching was developed by Hitachi Ltd. in 1996 to improve on the poor viewing angle and the poor color reproduction of TN panels at that time.

Initial iterations of IPS technology were characterised by slow response time and a low contrast ratio but later revisions have made marked improvements to these shortcomings. Because of its wide viewing angle and accurate color reproduction (with almost no off-angle color shift), IPS is widely employed in high-end monitors aimed at professional graphic artists, although with the recent fall in price it has been seen in the mainstream market as well. IPS technology was sold to Panasonic by Hitachi.

Most panels also support true 8-bit per channel color. These improvements came at the cost of a higher response time, initially about 50 ms. IPS panels were also extremely expensive.

In 2004, Hydis Technologies Co., Ltd licensed its AFFS patent to Japan"s Hitachi Displays. Hitachi is using AFFS to manufacture high end panels in their product line. In 2006, Hydis also licensed its AFFS to Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation.

Less expensive PVA panels often use dithering and FRC, whereas super-PVA (S-PVA) panels all use at least 8 bits per color component and do not use color simulation methods.BRAVIA LCD TVs offer 10-bit and xvYCC color support, for example, the Bravia X4500 series. S-PVA also offers fast response times using modern RTC technologies.

A technology developed by Samsung is Super PLS, which bears similarities to IPS panels, has wider viewing angles, better image quality, increased brightness, and lower production costs. PLS technology debuted in the PC display market with the release of the Samsung S27A850 and S24A850 monitors in September 2011.

Due to the very high cost of building TFT factories, there are few major OEM panel vendors for large display panels. The glass panel suppliers are as follows:

External consumer display devices like a TFT LCD feature one or more analog VGA, DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort interface, with many featuring a selection of these interfaces. Inside external display devices there is a controller board that will convert the video signal using color mapping and image scaling usually employing the discrete cosine transform (DCT) in order to convert any video source like CVBS, VGA, DVI, HDMI, etc. into digital RGB at the native resolution of the display panel. In a laptop the graphics chip will directly produce a signal suitable for connection to the built-in TFT display. A control mechanism for the backlight is usually included on the same controller board.

The low level interface of STN, DSTN, or TFT display panels use either single ended TTL 5 V signal for older displays or TTL 3.3 V for slightly newer displays that transmits the pixel clock, horizontal sync, vertical sync, digital red, digital green, digital blue in parallel. Some models (for example the AT070TN92) also feature input/display enable, horizontal scan direction and vertical scan direction signals.

New and large (>15") TFT displays often use LVDS signaling that transmits the same contents as the parallel interface (Hsync, Vsync, RGB) but will put control and RGB bits into a number of serial transmission lines synchronized to a clock whose rate is equal to the pixel rate. LVDS transmits seven bits per clock per data line, with six bits being data and one bit used to signal if the other six bits need to be inverted in order to maintain DC balance. Low-cost TFT displays often have three data lines and therefore only directly support 18 bits per pixel. Upscale displays have four or five data lines to support 24 bits per pixel (truecolor) or 30 bits per pixel respectively. Panel manufacturers are slowly replacing LVDS with Internal DisplayPort and Embedded DisplayPort, which allow sixfold reduction of the number of differential pairs.

The bare display panel will only accept a digital video signal at the resolution determined by the panel pixel matrix designed at manufacture. Some screen panels will ignore the LSB bits of the color information to present a consistent interface (8 bit -> 6 bit/color x3).

With analogue signals like VGA, the display controller also needs to perform a high speed analog to digital conversion. With digital input signals like DVI or HDMI some simple reordering of the bits is needed before feeding it to the rescaler if the input resolution doesn"t match the display panel resolution.

Kawamoto, H. (2012). "The Inventors of TFT Active-Matrix LCD Receive the 2011 IEEE Nishizawa Medal". Journal of Display Technology. 8 (1): 3–4. Bibcode:2012JDisT...8....3K. doi:10.1109/JDT.2011.2177740. ISSN 1551-319X.

Brody, T. Peter; Asars, J. A.; Dixon, G. D. (November 1973). "A 6 × 6 inch 20 lines-per-inch liquid-crystal display panel". 20 (11): 995–1001. Bibcode:1973ITED...20..995B. doi:10.1109/T-ED.1973.17780. ISSN 0018-9383.

Richard Ahrons (2012). "Industrial Research in Microcircuitry at RCA: The Early Years, 1953–1963". 12 (1). IEEE Annals of the History of Computing: 60–73. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

K. H. Lee; H. Y. Kim; K. H. Park; S. J. Jang; I. C. Park & J. Y. Lee (June 2006). "A Novel Outdoor Readability of Portable TFT-LCD with AFFS Technology". SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers. AIP. 37 (1): 1079–82. doi:10.1889/1.2433159. S2CID 129569963.

Kim, Sae-Bom; Kim, Woong-Ki; Chounlamany, Vanseng; Seo, Jaehwan; Yoo, Jisu; Jo, Hun-Je; Jung, Jinho (15 August 2012). "Identification of multi-level toxicity of liquid crystal display wastewater toward Daphnia magna and Moina macrocopa". Journal of Hazardous Materials. Seoul, Korea; Laos, Lao. 227–228: 327–333. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.05.059. PMID 22677053.

A touchscreen or touch screen is the assembly of both an input ("touch panel") and output ("display") device. The touch panel is normally layered on the top of an electronic visual display of an information processing system. The display is often an LCD, AMOLED or OLED display while the system is usually used in a laptop, tablet, or smartphone. A user can give input or control the information processing system through simple or multi-touch gestures by touching the screen with a special stylus or one or more fingers.zooming to increase the text size.

In 1972, a group at the University of Illinois filed for a patent on an optical touchscreenMagnavox Plato IV Student Terminal and thousands were built for this purpose. These touchscreens had a crossed array of 16×16 infrared position sensors, each composed of an LED on one edge of the screen and a matched phototransistor on the other edge, all mounted in front of a monochrome plasma display panel. This arrangement could sense any fingertip-sized opaque object in close proximity to the screen. A similar touchscreen was used on the HP-150 starting in 1983. The HP 150 was one of the world"s earliest commercial touchscreen computers.infrared transmitters and receivers around the bezel of a 9-inch Sony cathode ray tube (CRT).

Multi-touch technology began in 1982, when the University of Toronto"s Input Research Group developed the first human-input multi-touch system, using a frosted-glass panel with a camera placed behind the glass. In 1985, the University of Toronto group, including Bill Buxton, developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance rather than bulky camera-based optical sensing systems (see History of multi-touch).

The first commercially available graphical point-of-sale (POS) software was demonstrated on the 16-bit Atari 520ST color computer. It featured a color touchscreen widget-driven interface.COMDEX expo in 1986.

In 1987, Casio launched the Casio PB-1000 pocket computer with a touchscreen consisting of a 4×4 matrix, resulting in 16 touch areas in its small LCD graphic screen.

Touchscreens would not be popularly used for video games until the release of the Nintendo DS in 2004.Apple Watch being released with a force-sensitive display in April 2015.

In 2007, 93% of touchscreens shipped were resistive and only 4% were projected capacitance. In 2013, 3% of touchscreens shipped were resistive and 90% were projected capacitance.

A resistive touchscreen panel comprises several thin layers, the most important of which are two transparent electrically resistive layers facing each other with a thin gap between. The top layer (that which is touched) has a coating on the underside surface; just beneath it is a similar resistive layer on top of its substrate. One layer has conductive connections along its sides, the other along top and bottom. A voltage is applied to one layer and sensed by the other. When an object, such as a fingertip or stylus tip, presses down onto the outer surface, the two layers touch to become connected at that point.voltage dividers, one axis at a time. By rapidly switching between each layer, the position of pressure on the screen can be detected.

Surface acoustic wave (SAW) technology uses ultrasonic waves that pass over the touchscreen panel. When the panel is touched, a portion of the wave is absorbed. The change in ultrasonic waves is processed by the controller to determine the position of the touch event. Surface acoustic wave touchscreen panels can be damaged by outside elements. Contaminants on the surface can also interfere with the functionality of the touchscreen.

A capacitive touchscreen panel consists of an insulator, such as glass, coated with a transparent conductor, such as indium tin oxide (ITO).electrostatic field, measurable as a change in capacitance. Different technologies may be used to determine the location of the touch. The location is then sent to the controller for processing. Touchscreens that use silver instead of ITO exist, as ITO causes several environmental problems due to the use of indium.complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip, which in turn usually sends the signals to a CMOS digital signal processor (DSP) for processing.

In this basic technology, only one side of the insulator is coated with a conductive layer. A small voltage is applied to the layer, resulting in a uniform electrostatic field. When a conductor, such as a human finger, touches the uncoated surface, a capacitor is dynamically formed. The sensor"s controller can determine the location of the touch indirectly from the change in the capacitance as measured from the four corners of the panel. As it has no moving parts, it is moderately durable but has limited resolution, is prone to false signals from parasitic capacitive coupling, and needs calibration during manufacture. It is therefore most often used in simple applications such as industrial controls and kiosks.

In some designs, voltage applied to this grid creates a uniform electrostatic field, which can be measured. When a conductive object, such as a finger, comes into contact with a PCT panel, it distorts the local electrostatic field at that point. This is measurable as a change in capacitance. If a finger bridges the gap between two of the "tracks", the charge field is further interrupted and detected by the controller. The capacitance can be changed and measured at every individual point on the grid. This system is able to accurately track touches.

Unlike traditional capacitive touch technology, it is possible for a PCT system to sense a passive stylus or gloved finger. However, moisture on the surface of the panel, high humidity, or collected dust can interfere with performance.

Introduced in 2002 by 3M, this system detects a touch by using sensors to measure the piezoelectricity in the glass. Complex algorithms interpret this information and provide the actual location of the touch.

The key to this technology is that a touch at any one position on the surface generates a sound wave in the substrate which then produces a unique combined signal as measured by three or more tiny transducers attached to the edges of the touchscreen. The digitized signal is compared to a list corresponding to every position on the surface, determining the touch location. A moving touch is tracked by rapid repetition of this process. Extraneous and ambient sounds are ignored since they do not match any stored sound profile. The technology differs from other sound-based technologies by using a simple look-up method rather than expensive signal-processing hardware. As with the dispersive signal technology system, a motionless finger cannot be detected after the initial touch. However, for the same reason, the touch recognition is not disrupted by any resting objects. The technology was created by SoundTouch Ltd in the early 2000s, as described by the patent family EP1852772, and introduced to the market by Tyco International"s Elo division in 2006 as Acoustic Pulse Recognition.

With the growing use of touchscreens, the cost of touchscreen technology is routinely absorbed into the products that incorporate it and is nearly eliminated. Touchscreen technology has demonstrated reliability and is found in airplanes, automobiles, gaming consoles, machine control systems, appliances, and handheld display devices including cellphones; the touchscreen market for mobile devices was projected to produce US$5 billion by 2009.

TapSense, announced in October 2011, allows touchscreens to distinguish what part of the hand was used for input, such as the fingertip, knuckle and fingernail. This could be used in a variety of ways, for example, to copy and paste, to capitalize letters, to activate different drawing modes, etc.

Guidelines for touchscreen designs were first developed in the 2000s, based on early research and actual use of older systems, typically using infrared grids—which were highly dependent on the size of the user"s fingers. These guidelines are less relevant for the bulk of modern touch devices which use capacitive or resistive touch technology.

From the mid-2000s, makers of operating systems for smartphones have promulgated standards, but these vary between manufacturers, and allow for significant variation in size based on technology changes, so are unsuitable from a human factors perspective.

Touchscreens are often used with haptic response systems. A common example of this technology is the vibratory feedback provided when a button on the touchscreen is tapped. Haptics are used to improve the user"s experience with touchscreens by providing simulated tactile feedback, and can be designed to react immediately, partly countering on-screen response latency. Research from the University of Glasgow (Brewster, Chohan, and Brown, 2007; and more recently Hogan) demonstrates that touchscreen users reduce input errors (by 20%), increase input speed (by 20%), and lower their cognitive load (by 40%) when touchscreens are combined with haptics or tactile feedback. On top of this, a study conducted in 2013 by Boston College explored the effects that touchscreens haptic stimulation had on triggering psychological ownership of a product. Their research concluded that a touchscreens ability to incorporate high amounts of haptic involvement resulted in customers feeling more endowment to the products they were designing or buying. The study also reported that consumers using a touchscreen were willing to accept a higher price point for the items they were purchasing.

Walker, Geoff (August 2012). "A review of technologies for sensing contact location on the surface of a display: Review of touch technologies". Journal of the Society for Information Display. 20 (8): 413–440. doi:10.1002/jsid.100. S2CID 40545665.

"The first capacitative touch screens at CERN". CERN Courrier. 31 March 2010. Archived from the original on 4 September 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-25. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Beck, Frank; Stumpe, Bent (May 24, 1973). Two devices for operator interaction in the central control of the new CERN accelerator (Report). CERN. CERN-73-06. Retrieved 2017-09-14.

Johnson, E.A. (1965). "Touch Display - A novel input/output device for computers". Electronics Letters. 1 (8): 219–220. Bibcode:1965ElL.....1..219J. doi:10.1049/el:19650200.

Stumpe, Bent; Sutton, Christine (1 June 2010). "CERN touch screen". Symmetry Magazine. A joint Fermilab/SLAC publication. Archived from the original on 2016-11-16. Retrieved 16 November 2016.

Mallebrein, Rainer (2018-02-18). "Oral History of Rainer Mallebrein" (PDF) (Interview). Interviewed by Steinbach, Günter. Singen am Hohentwiel, Germany: Computer History Museum. CHM Ref: X8517.2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-01-27. Retrieved 2021-08-23. (18 pages)

Ebner, Susanne (2018-01-24). "Entwickler aus Singen über die Anfänge der Computermaus: "Wir waren der Zeit voraus"" [Singen-based developer about the advent of the computer mouse: "We were ahead of time"]. Leben und Wissen. Südkurier GmbH. Archived from the original on 2021-03-02. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

Emerson, Lewis (December 13, 2010). ""G. Samuel Hurst -- the "Tom Edison" of ORNL", December 14 2010". G. Samuel Hurst -- the "Tom Edison" of ORNL. Retrieved 2010-12-13.

Technology Trends: 2nd Quarter 1986 Archived 2016-10-15 at the Wayback Machine, Japanese Semiconductor Industry Service - Volume II: Technology & Government

Potter, R.; Weldon, L.; Shneiderman, B. (1988). "Improving the accuracy of touch screens: an experimental evaluation of three strategies". Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI "88. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI "88. Washington, DC. pp. 27–32. doi:10.1145/57167.57171. ISBN 0201142376. Archived from the original on 2015-12-08.

Sears, Andrew; Plaisant, Catherine; Shneiderman, Ben (June 1990). "A new era for high-precision touchscreens". In Hartson, R.; Hix, D. (eds.). Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. Vol. 3. Ablex (1992). ISBN 978-0-89391-751-7. Archived from the original on October 9, 2014.

Apple touch-screen patent war comes to the UK (2011). Event occurs at 1:24 min in video. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2015.

Hong, Chan-Hwa; Shin, Jae-Heon; Ju, Byeong-Kwon; Kim, Kyung-Hyun; Park, Nae-Man; Kim, Bo-Sul; Cheong, Woo-Seok (1 November 2013). "Index-Matched Indium Tin Oxide Electrodes for Capacitive Touch Screen Panel Applications". Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. 13 (11): 7756–7759. doi:10.1166/jnn.2013.7814. PMID 24245328. S2CID 24281861.

Kent, Joel (May 2010). "Touchscreen technology basics & a new development". CMOS Emerging Technologies Conference. CMOS Emerging Technologies Research. 6: 1–13. ISBN 9781927500057.

Ganapati, Priya (5 March 2010). "Finger Fail: Why Most Touchscreens Miss the Point". Archived from the original on 2014-05-11. Retrieved 9 November 2019.

Beyers, Tim (2008-02-13). "Innovation Series: Touchscreen Technology". The Motley Fool. Archived from the original on 2009-03-24. Retrieved 2009-03-16.

"Acoustic Pulse Recognition Touchscreens" (PDF). Elo Touch Systems. 2006: 3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-09-05. Retrieved 2011-09-27. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

"Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs)–Part 9: Requirements for Non-keyboard Input Devices". International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland. 2000.

Hoober, Steven (2013-11-11). "Design for Fingers and Thumbs Instead of Touch". UXmatters. Archived from the original on 2014-08-26. Retrieved 2014-08-24.

Hoober, Steven; Shank, Patti; Boll, Susanne (2014). "Making mLearning Usable: How We Use Mobile Devices". Santa Rosa, CA. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Henze, Niels; Rukzio, Enrico; Boll, Susanne (2011). "100,000,000 Taps: Analysis and Improvement of Touch Performance in the Large". Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. New York.

Lee, Seungyons; Zhai, Shumin (2009). "The Performance of Touch Screen Soft Buttons". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: 309. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518750. ISBN 9781605582467. S2CID 2468830.

Bérard, François (2012). "Measuring the Linear and Rotational User Precision in Touch Pointing". Proceedings of the 2012 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. New York: 183. doi:10.1145/2396636.2396664. ISBN 9781450312097. S2CID 15765730.

Hoober, Steven (2014-09-02). "Insights on Switching, Centering, and Gestures for Touchscreens". UXmatters. Archived from the original on 2014-09-06. Retrieved 2014-08-24.

Brasel, S. Adam; Gips, James (2014). "Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 24 (2): 226–233. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.10.003.

Zhu, Ying; Meyer, Jeffrey (September 2017). "Getting in touch with your thinking style: How touchscreens influence purchase". Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 38: 51–58. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.05.006.

"A RESTAURANT THAT LETS GUESTS PLACE ORDERS VIA A TOUCHSCREEN TABLE (Touche is said to be the first touchscreen restaurant in India and fifth in the world)". India Business Insight. 31 August 2011. Gale A269135159.

Sears, Andrew; Shneiderman, Ben (April 1991). "High precision touchscreens: design strategies and comparisons with a mouse". International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 34 (4): 593–613. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90037-8. hdl:

How big is big enough? When it comes to computer monitors, you want something that can fit comfortably on your desk while giving you plenty of screen real estate. While in the past sub-20-inch monitors were commonplace, today, unless you’re really constrained for space, there’s no real need to buy anything under 22 inches. For most, 24 inches is going to be a baseline, as you can pick up a number of screens at that size for around $100, and they look fantastic at 1080p.

For those who want more than that, though, there are plenty of sizes to choose from. Monitors that stretch 27 inches diagonally are increasingly popular, and there are plenty of options beyond 30 inches that are affordable. If you want to go extreme, we’ve even tried some great computer monitors that get close to 50 inches, like Samsung’s CHG90.

Anywhere between 24 and 30 inches is going to be perfectly fine for most users. They let you make the most of modern resolutions and color clarity, and they also fit a couple of different web pages open at the same time without needing to use two monitors, which is handy for many professionals. They don’t tend to be too expensive at that size, either, unless you opt for the top-end models.

Today, all the best screens are still LCD monitors that use LED technology for a slim product that saves energy while providing ideal backlighting. We’ve been waiting years for OLED technology to make the transition to PC monitors, it isfinally beginning thanks to brands like LG, but the technology is still relatively rare.

1080p: If you want reasonable clarity, but want to save on cost or focus on other, more important features, 1080p is where it’s at — as long as the monitor you’re buying isn’t extremely large. 1080p is ideal for 21-inch to 24-inch displays. These monitors offer great picture quality, and now that they are competing with 4K, the prices are rock-bottom. If you want to go larger than 24 inches, though, you should consider 2,560 x 1,440 resolution at the least and perhaps 4K.

4K/Ultra HD (UHD): 4K is the resolution that the industry is most keen to drive consumers towards. It looks much more detailed than 1080p with 3,840 x 2,160 pixels, and prices have come down substantially in the past few years. That said, gamers will need a powerful graphics card to run a system at this resolution, and finding affordable monitors with full suites of frame synching support or high-refresh rates is still difficult. There is plenty of 4K media out there to enjoy, though, whether you’re streaming or using UHD Blu-rays.

Refresh rate: Rated in hertz (Hz), a monitor’s refresh rate is how often it updates the image on your screen. While most support up to 60Hz, some displays now offer much higher refresh rates. That can result in smoother movements on your desktop and support for higher frame rates in games, which can make a big difference in high-paced titles by reducing your input lag. 120Hz to 144Hz is a great range to target, but you could opt for the fastest screens out there with up to 240Hz support. Just make sure you have a high-powered graphics card to back it up.

The type of panel used to make your new display can have a major impact on what it looks like and how it performs. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses, making them better suited to different sorts of PC users. While manufacturers have made valiant attempts to bridge the gaps between the types, each tends to still have its evangelists, and depending on what you spend most of your time doing while on your PC, you’ll likely want to opt for one over the other. There can be a cost to pay for certain features, though.

TN: The most common panel type, Twisted Nematic (TN) displays offer good visuals and some of the fastest response times, making them great for gamers. But colors can look a little washed out, and viewing angles aren’t great. Displays with TN panels tend to be the most affordable.

VA:VA panels, sometimes referred to as MVA or PVA, have slightly better colors and good viewing angles, but can suffer from ghosting. While their response times can be good on paper, they don’t always translate well into real-world usage.

IPS: Displays with IPS panels tend to be the most expensive of the bunch, but what you get for your money is much richer colors and clear viewing angles that are near horizontal. The downside of IPS panels is that they don’t tend to have as fast response times as TN displays, so some consider them inferior for gaming. There are, however, gaming IPS displays, like the fantastic Asus PG279Q, which make good ground on their TN counterparts. Some IPS monitors suffer from quality control issues, though, and most IPS displays have a telltale glow when displaying dark images due to backlight bleeding.

To run a display at 4K resolution, you’ll need to use HDMI 1.4 at the very least, though HDMI 2.0 would be required if you want to support a refresh rate of 60Hz, which should be a bare minimum unless all you do is watch movies on it (with HDMI 2.1 being the newest version of the standard). If you want to do high refresh rate gaming, especially at higher resolutions, DisplayPort 1.4 monitors can handle up to 8K at 60Hz and 4K at up to 200Hz, so they’re better suited than HDMI in that regard. DisplayPort 2.0 is also on the way.