So let me get see if I understand this. Passive matrix LCDs, those smeary old things we used to be forced to deal with on laptops that had terrible viewing angles, were slowly replaced over the ensuing decades by better and better panels that had wider viewing angles (a metric often measured in reviews and espoused as a benefit to the owner). Those widely viewable screens are now getting a privacy filter to compensate for the problem of their wide viewability. Now limited viewing angles are being offered as a selling point and checkbox feature. Amusing.
>have to work in public areas You have no requirement to work in public areas. Nobody does. And if they do, then it isn't their fault, nor should it be their concern, if someone is actively trying to spy on them from a public area; After all it's not their work policy that forced them to _HAVE_ to work in a public area, but the company's policy, and it's their loss whenever the company loses information in this manner.
Last time I checked, no company required you to have to pull out your work laptop and work in a public Starbucks or something. If you do, that's your own problem, and you should be more deliberate about where you do confidential work, particularly if you're in a public area.
>Should-surfing is a real threat to security! Sure thing, bro. And the NSA, Facebook, and Google aren't.
If you don't need it don't buy it. In the real world, security isn't as black and white as you make it seem. In the real world, people work on projects in public places that don't involve hyper confidential national secrets. It's not information they want disseminated out in the public, but it's not something so secretive that they have to work in a cellar 1,000 ft below ground level either. For example, someone who commutes on the subway every morning may choose to use that time to read/send personal or business e-mails. They aren't "required" to work on the subway, but they'd rather work during that time, with some modicum of security, rather than dawdle about doing nothing for 30 minutes and do the work at home or stay later in the office instead of spending time with their kids.
@JoeyJoJo123 Seriously WTF? Who is trying to shift the blame from companies to the individual worker? Privacy screens are a real thing and I imagine are usually purchased by companies to put on their laptops. >Last time I checked, no company required you to have to pull out your work laptop and work in a public Starbucks or something. When was that? Many people are expected to work while travelling and not having the person in the seat next to you reading your screen could be useful.
But what's the problem? Your hostility to a technology widely used in the corporate world for no apparent reason is bizarre.
I love how clueless all the haters are of enterprise security policies on these forums. I expected more from AT readers.
Polarizing filters are a multi-million dollar industry for 3M. Why? Because people buy them. Any HIPPA or FICO compliant facility has them on any reception display, and a lot of companies have mixed security clearances even on the SAME FLOOR, so every desk has a privacy filter.
This is incredibly common technology in corporate America and HP is going to sell tens of thousands of these laptops just for that reason while they have the market cornered.
The amusing thing is the people hating on this are probably the same people who get all upset every time a company loses their personal info due to a hack.
After being kept awake on a redeye flight after the cabin lights were turned off because the person sitting next to me pulled out their laptop to work on some business presentation, I am all for this. And from a technology standpoint, the fact that they can turn this on/off and control the angle is intriguing. I can think of a lot of other applications for it outside of laptops. Like putting it on a window so that you can still see straight out the window, but sunlight coming through from higher up is blocked to help cut down on the air conditioning bill.
>You have no requirement to work in public areas. Nobody does. And if they do, then it isn't their fault
I don't know about you but to many of us, work policy and work freedom are not mutually exclusive.
>you should be more deliberate about where you do confidential work
I thought using these technologies are one of the solutions to be deliberate about security. Why compromise on time, when you get the option to use more secure computing? You seem to miss the point of executives and outdoor professionals being a sizeable demographic, thus market.
>Sure thing, bro. And the NSA, Facebook, and Google aren't.
That like saying you shouldn't use privacy windows on your car because your tyres are going to be stolen anyways.
TN displays are horrible with colors. If you manage to look at the display in the best possible way, colors near the display edges are still distorted. These HP filters could limit viewing angles without distorting colors - that would be very ok in my opinion.
See in the top picture, the girl is using her laptop in a public place, but somehow she expects to have any reasonable amount of privacy. The limitation on viewing angles does not prevent someone from looking directly over her shoulder to see what she's viewing, nor does it give real privacy. So in essence, this is a joke solution for a joke problem.
If she _really_ needs that privacy, then she needs to take her laptop with her to a more secluded location, rather than just using it in a public cafe where obviously people are trying look at her screen from behind her.
Oh, and even moreso of a joke, chances are the girl's browsing Facebook or using Google services right there in that picture, and ironically enough, these services clearly don't respect your web privacy in any way, whatsoever, so it's even more of a joke that she would care more about what some girl at a cafe can see from over her shoulder, but not care that she's literally handing over personally identifiable information to Facebook/Google.
JoeyJoJo123, the only joke here is you. I don't know if you are clueless, trolling, or a Lenovo employee jelly over HP beating you to the punch on what will likely become an industry-wide feature on corporate laptops. If you've ever been observant of your doctors office (your psychiatrist, perhaps) you'd notice the receptionist likely had a privacy screen.
I'm not too sure you even understand the concept of what multi-factor authentication means.
If something needs to be secure (in other words, private), then it's not as easy as slapping a polarized filter on top of a screen and calling it a day. Likewise, for the same reason, it's not enough to expect any real level of security by slapping on a lock on a bicycle and expect it to not be stolen.
There's a saying, "Locks keep honest people honest." If someone has the intention to look over your shoulder, they will do so and move to a location to where they can view your screen. Likewise, if you leave a $4,000 competition cycling bicycle locked on a bike rack, someone will be buying a $50 bolt cutter and walking away with $3950.
The industry makes billions of dollars a year selling laminate film which serves only to give the user peace of mind that with that $20 filter (manufactured in China by child labor for less than 25 cents, by the way) they won't be hacked. The reason I think these privacy filters are a joke are because:
1) Screen cheating isn't the one and only way to be hacked. 2) It gives a false sense of security/privacy, which is easily circumvented by the perpetrator moving to a location on-axis from the monitor, rather than off-axis. 3) It gives the same effect as just pressing Ctrl + - to make text temporarily smaller, so that users from a distance can't discern the text on the screen. 4) In practice (and I work in an office where privacy filters are just given to new hires, for their company computer(s) and their home computer(s), for free) the majority of users here don't use it for its intended purpose (browsing the internet for personal use, made obvious when the user accidentally pulls their headphones out of the computer, and a loud YouTube video begins to blare out of their speakers in a quiet office, followed by quick shuffling to mute the sound) or remove it because it limits their viewing angle of the screen.
Users at my office know that security comes from the PKI-enabled smart cards that we use to login to computers, to unencrypt encrypted e-mails or documents, or that people who work on sensitive data work in approved environments (read: isolated offices with smart card slots which grant entry only to authorized personnel).
It's not enough to screen cheat, or to carefully look at a user while they're typing in their pin, etc. Everything worth keeping secure here requires multi-factor authentication. That's nothing that a privacy filter solves, and perpetuating this myth that limited viewing angles (although nice that it is optional... on the laptop's integrated monitor only) helps security by any significant margin is a long shot, to say the least.
Multi-factor authentication is pointless when it just takes someone working next to you to peek over and see what's on your screen.
Hospitals, for example, are very crowded in the doctor dictation and nurse station areas. They normally are working right next to other medical professionals who do not have the authorization to see the patient data on the screen next to them. It's just how the business works.
And saying screen cheating isn't the only way to be hacked is an asinine argument against having privacy screens.
Not all TN displays are created equal. The really bad (cheap) ones suffer from enough color shift that the edges of the display show different colors from the center as you describe. The really good ones are indistinguishable from an IPS-type panel when viewed head-on. My last laptop (Sony VPC-Z) had a TN panel which covered AdobeRGB color space and had a contrast ratio of nearly 2000:1. My current laptop has an IPS panel that "only" has a 800:1 contrast ratio and covers sRGB color space. Every now and then I fire up the Sony to do a little web browsing, and shed a tear. I've even toyed with the idea of buying a new 13.3" laptop and somehow transplanting the Sony screen into it.
I don't necessarily agree with this. In certain fields (for example, HR), it would be important to have this on at times and off at other times. This line is the most important of the article:
By contrast, HP’s Sure View can be turned on and off, thus improving privacy without persistent reduction of viewing angles of laptop screens.
So you can get the nicer screen for your normal work (or, perhaps, when not working), but then if you're doing sensitive things, you can easily turn it on and have those benefits.
We have an HR person at work who has the privacy screens on her Desktop monitors. She says she hates the viewing angles but needs them for some of her work. This would be perfect for her (in a desktop form factor, but the point remains).
Does the HR representative sit in the same area as other users?
If so, that's the real problem here, not some privacy screens. The HR representative should be in their own office where only they can view their own screens.
1) I very obviously do work in an office, as a government contract employee.
2) I'm right here bro, how about you start by even attempting a rebuttal against the argument I've laid out above so I can go ahead and counter you, point-for-point, about how privacy filters are effectively a placebo solution for a user's privacy, and therefore the security of the information at hand.
Listen, bro, all I'm saying is you are clearly the only one in the comments lacking the insight to see why privacy filters are necessary, not just in public spaces (as you astoundingly imply people are never to work, when millions of people do, daily.)
You are also, again, conflicting the definition of privacy and security.
Let me know when you post a counter-argument. Until then, it seems you have nothing to retort but repeating "But you're wrong!" and giving no supportive evidence.
Also, there's a distinct difference between being a government employee and being an employee for a private company that has been awarded government contracts for classified work.
The former is like working for the post office (USPS) or working in the military. The latter is like working for contractors such as Boeing, or various privately-owned IT companies, whom just happen to be paid by the government for the services/products that the company provides.
That's not exactly the correct way to do things, especially for an HR department, and therefore isn't the safest way to keep confidential information of customer information and employment terms secure.
Consider the incredibly unlikely event that the company is near bankruptcy and needs to lay off half of its employees to continue to function, including HR. How do 3 HR employees keep confidential information such as the status of the other 2 HR employees' end of employment?
Therefore, on any occasion, every HR employee should be able to function independently and confidentially from one another, even if on a day-to-day basis there may be no risk of other HR employees being terminated from their position.
Also, if I were to give anecdotal evidence, such as "You have never worked in a McDonalds, have you? At my work, there's 5 frycooks picking their noses and flicking boogers into the fryer," you can't seriously expect that this single piece of anecdotal evidence is proof of how all McDonald's _should_ function.
There's a distinct difference between the way someone's particular office handles a process and the way all offices _should_ handle that process.
The details of the article make it apparent this isn't something that's simply turned on or off as needed, but a coating that reduces the viewing angle as brightness decreases. In reality, this sort of thing happens already to a much lesser extent on cheap TN panels as the user reduces brightness. The way AT presents the feature initially would lead one to believe it's some sort of active filtering, but it doesn't appear that way. The Fn+F2 keyboard combination is probably just a shortcut to an appropriately reduced brightness level where the filter becomes more effective.
The details of your comment make it apparent you didn't read the whole article :P To quote the article: "viewing angle adjustments are independent of brightness and one is not dependent on the other"
I don't think the article is very well written. This line: "HP’s Sure View technology uses a special film from 3M as well as HP’s own backlighting," clearly implies relevance to the backlight's importance in the combination of technologies that contribute to reducing viewability.
Yes, and given every backlight can adjust it's brightness, the article implies HP's backlight is capable of more than that. Perhaps it's something to do with polarisation or something like that.
Yeah I always wondered what the big deal with viewing angles is. As long as it's good enough to not affect a single user, no issue. why would you need 160 degree viewing angles anyway?
Because generally the higher the rated viewing angle, the less distortion there is at smaller viewing angles, too. TN screens supposedly have something like 160 degrees of viewing angle but they start to look terrible even if you're just 30 degrees off center.
I can see this being very useful in the healthcare environment, where you have multiple open comps and desktops running in an "open" area (like a ward). Not to mention the new trend of carrying a hospital laptop to write patient notes instead of thick ass charts. Patient privacy is still a concern, even among other docs working in the physician lounge (although most don't care and or don't snoop anyways)
Docs are the worst with keeping on the add-on privacy screen. Have tried the HP monitors with built-in privacy screens, but they were not secure enough. Hoping this new version can be controlled with active directory so docs don't work around the requirement and still not impede direct visibility.
This is a good idea and HP should put them on all their Elitebooks. They used to have a slot for inserting a film, but on the one I have, the film needs to be taped on. This is annoying and not very secure. The FN-key setting is much more convenient.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
Back to Article
BrokenCrayons - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
So let me get see if I understand this. Passive matrix LCDs, those smeary old things we used to be forced to deal with on laptops that had terrible viewing angles, were slowly replaced over the ensuing decades by better and better panels that had wider viewing angles (a metric often measured in reviews and espoused as a benefit to the owner). Those widely viewable screens are now getting a privacy filter to compensate for the problem of their wide viewability. Now limited viewing angles are being offered as a selling point and checkbox feature. Amusing.JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
Yeah, this is pretty much a joke.WKCook - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
Privacy screens are NOT a joke if you have to work in public areas. Should-surfing is a real threat to security!JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
>have to work in public areasYou have no requirement to work in public areas. Nobody does. And if they do, then it isn't their fault, nor should it be their concern, if someone is actively trying to spy on them from a public area; After all it's not their work policy that forced them to _HAVE_ to work in a public area, but the company's policy, and it's their loss whenever the company loses information in this manner.
Last time I checked, no company required you to have to pull out your work laptop and work in a public Starbucks or something. If you do, that's your own problem, and you should be more deliberate about where you do confidential work, particularly if you're in a public area.
>Should-surfing is a real threat to security!
Sure thing, bro. And the NSA, Facebook, and Google aren't.
artemicion - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
If you don't need it don't buy it. In the real world, security isn't as black and white as you make it seem. In the real world, people work on projects in public places that don't involve hyper confidential national secrets. It's not information they want disseminated out in the public, but it's not something so secretive that they have to work in a cellar 1,000 ft below ground level either. For example, someone who commutes on the subway every morning may choose to use that time to read/send personal or business e-mails. They aren't "required" to work on the subway, but they'd rather work during that time, with some modicum of security, rather than dawdle about doing nothing for 30 minutes and do the work at home or stay later in the office instead of spending time with their kids.snowmyr - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
@JoeyJoJo123 Seriously WTF? Who is trying to shift the blame from companies to the individual worker? Privacy screens are a real thing and I imagine are usually purchased by companies to put on their laptops.>Last time I checked, no company required you to have to pull out your work laptop and work in a public Starbucks or something.
When was that? Many people are expected to work while travelling and not having the person in the seat next to you reading your screen could be useful.
But what's the problem? Your hostility to a technology widely used in the corporate world for no apparent reason is bizarre.
Samus - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
I love how clueless all the haters are of enterprise security policies on these forums. I expected more from AT readers.Polarizing filters are a multi-million dollar industry for 3M. Why? Because people buy them. Any HIPPA or FICO compliant facility has them on any reception display, and a lot of companies have mixed security clearances even on the SAME FLOOR, so every desk has a privacy filter.
This is incredibly common technology in corporate America and HP is going to sell tens of thousands of these laptops just for that reason while they have the market cornered.
Solandri - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
The amusing thing is the people hating on this are probably the same people who get all upset every time a company loses their personal info due to a hack.After being kept awake on a redeye flight after the cabin lights were turned off because the person sitting next to me pulled out their laptop to work on some business presentation, I am all for this. And from a technology standpoint, the fact that they can turn this on/off and control the angle is intriguing. I can think of a lot of other applications for it outside of laptops. Like putting it on a window so that you can still see straight out the window, but sunlight coming through from higher up is blocked to help cut down on the air conditioning bill.
Murloc - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
why not use the eye cover?Right, airlines suck in america.
fanchiuho - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
>You have no requirement to work in public areas. Nobody does. And if they do, then it isn't their faultI don't know about you but to many of us, work policy and work freedom are not mutually exclusive.
>you should be more deliberate about where you do confidential work
I thought using these technologies are one of the solutions to be deliberate about security. Why compromise on time, when you get the option to use more secure computing? You seem to miss the point of executives and outdoor professionals being a sizeable demographic, thus market.
>Sure thing, bro. And the NSA, Facebook, and Google aren't.
That like saying you shouldn't use privacy windows on your car because your tyres are going to be stolen anyways.
spooh - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
TN displays are horrible with colors. If you manage to look at the display in the best possible way, colors near the display edges are still distorted. These HP filters could limit viewing angles without distorting colors - that would be very ok in my opinion.JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
Here's the joke:See in the top picture, the girl is using her laptop in a public place, but somehow she expects to have any reasonable amount of privacy. The limitation on viewing angles does not prevent someone from looking directly over her shoulder to see what she's viewing, nor does it give real privacy. So in essence, this is a joke solution for a joke problem.
If she _really_ needs that privacy, then she needs to take her laptop with her to a more secluded location, rather than just using it in a public cafe where obviously people are trying look at her screen from behind her.
JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
Oh, and even moreso of a joke, chances are the girl's browsing Facebook or using Google services right there in that picture, and ironically enough, these services clearly don't respect your web privacy in any way, whatsoever, so it's even more of a joke that she would care more about what some girl at a cafe can see from over her shoulder, but not care that she's literally handing over personally identifiable information to Facebook/Google.Samus - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
JoeyJoJo123, the only joke here is you. I don't know if you are clueless, trolling, or a Lenovo employee jelly over HP beating you to the punch on what will likely become an industry-wide feature on corporate laptops. If you've ever been observant of your doctors office (your psychiatrist, perhaps) you'd notice the receptionist likely had a privacy screen.JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
I'm not too sure you even understand the concept of what multi-factor authentication means.If something needs to be secure (in other words, private), then it's not as easy as slapping a polarized filter on top of a screen and calling it a day. Likewise, for the same reason, it's not enough to expect any real level of security by slapping on a lock on a bicycle and expect it to not be stolen.
There's a saying, "Locks keep honest people honest." If someone has the intention to look over your shoulder, they will do so and move to a location to where they can view your screen. Likewise, if you leave a $4,000 competition cycling bicycle locked on a bike rack, someone will be buying a $50 bolt cutter and walking away with $3950.
The industry makes billions of dollars a year selling laminate film which serves only to give the user peace of mind that with that $20 filter (manufactured in China by child labor for less than 25 cents, by the way) they won't be hacked. The reason I think these privacy filters are a joke are because:
1) Screen cheating isn't the one and only way to be hacked.
2) It gives a false sense of security/privacy, which is easily circumvented by the perpetrator moving to a location on-axis from the monitor, rather than off-axis.
3) It gives the same effect as just pressing Ctrl + - to make text temporarily smaller, so that users from a distance can't discern the text on the screen.
4) In practice (and I work in an office where privacy filters are just given to new hires, for their company computer(s) and their home computer(s), for free) the majority of users here don't use it for its intended purpose (browsing the internet for personal use, made obvious when the user accidentally pulls their headphones out of the computer, and a loud YouTube video begins to blare out of their speakers in a quiet office, followed by quick shuffling to mute the sound) or remove it because it limits their viewing angle of the screen.
Users at my office know that security comes from the PKI-enabled smart cards that we use to login to computers, to unencrypt encrypted e-mails or documents, or that people who work on sensitive data work in approved environments (read: isolated offices with smart card slots which grant entry only to authorized personnel).
It's not enough to screen cheat, or to carefully look at a user while they're typing in their pin, etc. Everything worth keeping secure here requires multi-factor authentication. That's nothing that a privacy filter solves, and perpetuating this myth that limited viewing angles (although nice that it is optional... on the laptop's integrated monitor only) helps security by any significant margin is a long shot, to say the least.
Hence, privacy filters are a joke.
tarqsharq - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
Multi-factor authentication is pointless when it just takes someone working next to you to peek over and see what's on your screen.Hospitals, for example, are very crowded in the doctor dictation and nurse station areas. They normally are working right next to other medical professionals who do not have the authorization to see the patient data on the screen next to them. It's just how the business works.
And saying screen cheating isn't the only way to be hacked is an asinine argument against having privacy screens.
Notmyusualid - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
+48.10^76Lord of the Bored - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
Trufax: The girl in the background is smiling because the facebook post has a hilarious picture.patel21 - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
Do you think it would really matter them when working on Word or Excel ??Solandri - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
Not all TN displays are created equal. The really bad (cheap) ones suffer from enough color shift that the edges of the display show different colors from the center as you describe. The really good ones are indistinguishable from an IPS-type panel when viewed head-on. My last laptop (Sony VPC-Z) had a TN panel which covered AdobeRGB color space and had a contrast ratio of nearly 2000:1. My current laptop has an IPS panel that "only" has a 800:1 contrast ratio and covers sRGB color space. Every now and then I fire up the Sony to do a little web browsing, and shed a tear. I've even toyed with the idea of buying a new 13.3" laptop and somehow transplanting the Sony screen into it.Chapbass - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
I don't necessarily agree with this. In certain fields (for example, HR), it would be important to have this on at times and off at other times. This line is the most important of the article:By contrast, HP’s Sure View can be turned on and off, thus improving privacy without persistent reduction of viewing angles of laptop screens.
So you can get the nicer screen for your normal work (or, perhaps, when not working), but then if you're doing sensitive things, you can easily turn it on and have those benefits.
We have an HR person at work who has the privacy screens on her Desktop monitors. She says she hates the viewing angles but needs them for some of her work. This would be perfect for her (in a desktop form factor, but the point remains).
JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
Does the HR representative sit in the same area as other users?If so, that's the real problem here, not some privacy screens. The HR representative should be in their own office where only they can view their own screens.
snowmyr - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
I'm beginning to think a privacy screen killed JoeyJoJo123's family. Nothing else explains this personal vendetta.tarqsharq - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
Snowmyr I'm going to have to agree with you.It's like he thinks a niche product will replace standard screen technology for all users...
Pissedoffyouth - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
You have never worked in an office have you? At my work, there's 5 HR people all sharing the same office.Samus - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
He has clearly never been in an office setting and is missing the obvious concept of privacy, and especially confusing it with security.JoeyJoJo123 - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
1) I very obviously do work in an office, as a government contract employee.2) I'm right here bro, how about you start by even attempting a rebuttal against the argument I've laid out above so I can go ahead and counter you, point-for-point, about how privacy filters are effectively a placebo solution for a user's privacy, and therefore the security of the information at hand.
Samus - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
Right here, bro?Spoken like a true government employee.
Listen, bro, all I'm saying is you are clearly the only one in the comments lacking the insight to see why privacy filters are necessary, not just in public spaces (as you astoundingly imply people are never to work, when millions of people do, daily.)
You are also, again, conflicting the definition of privacy and security.
JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
Let me know when you post a counter-argument. Until then, it seems you have nothing to retort but repeating "But you're wrong!" and giving no supportive evidence.JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
Also, there's a distinct difference between being a government employee and being an employee for a private company that has been awarded government contracts for classified work.The former is like working for the post office (USPS) or working in the military. The latter is like working for contractors such as Boeing, or various privately-owned IT companies, whom just happen to be paid by the government for the services/products that the company provides.
JoeyJoJo123 - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
That's not exactly the correct way to do things, especially for an HR department, and therefore isn't the safest way to keep confidential information of customer information and employment terms secure.Consider the incredibly unlikely event that the company is near bankruptcy and needs to lay off half of its employees to continue to function, including HR. How do 3 HR employees keep confidential information such as the status of the other 2 HR employees' end of employment?
Therefore, on any occasion, every HR employee should be able to function independently and confidentially from one another, even if on a day-to-day basis there may be no risk of other HR employees being terminated from their position.
Also, if I were to give anecdotal evidence, such as "You have never worked in a McDonalds, have you? At my work, there's 5 frycooks picking their noses and flicking boogers into the fryer," you can't seriously expect that this single piece of anecdotal evidence is proof of how all McDonald's _should_ function.
There's a distinct difference between the way someone's particular office handles a process and the way all offices _should_ handle that process.
BrokenCrayons - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
The details of the article make it apparent this isn't something that's simply turned on or off as needed, but a coating that reduces the viewing angle as brightness decreases. In reality, this sort of thing happens already to a much lesser extent on cheap TN panels as the user reduces brightness. The way AT presents the feature initially would lead one to believe it's some sort of active filtering, but it doesn't appear that way. The Fn+F2 keyboard combination is probably just a shortcut to an appropriately reduced brightness level where the filter becomes more effective.Wardrop - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
The details of your comment make it apparent you didn't read the whole article :P To quote the article: "viewing angle adjustments are independent of brightness and one is not dependent on the other"BrokenCrayons - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
I don't think the article is very well written. This line: "HP’s Sure View technology uses a special film from 3M as well as HP’s own backlighting," clearly implies relevance to the backlight's importance in the combination of technologies that contribute to reducing viewability.Wardrop - Sunday, August 28, 2016 - link
Yes, and given every backlight can adjust it's brightness, the article implies HP's backlight is capable of more than that. Perhaps it's something to do with polarisation or something like that.beginner99 - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
Yeah I always wondered what the big deal with viewing angles is. As long as it's good enough to not affect a single user, no issue. why would you need 160 degree viewing angles anyway?peterfares - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
Because generally the higher the rated viewing angle, the less distortion there is at smaller viewing angles, too. TN screens supposedly have something like 160 degrees of viewing angle but they start to look terrible even if you're just 30 degrees off center.tipoo - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
Funny, but this is an optional feature with a button press. Enjoy the wide angles when you want, use the privacy mode for sensitive stuff in public.jimjamjamie - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
"Ultimately, the user can control the privacy with an on/off switch as required, rather than equipping a perminant film that can reduce comfort."> perminant
Sushisamurai - Friday, August 26, 2016 - link
I can see this being very useful in the healthcare environment, where you have multiple open comps and desktops running in an "open" area (like a ward). Not to mention the new trend of carrying a hospital laptop to write patient notes instead of thick ass charts. Patient privacy is still a concern, even among other docs working in the physician lounge (although most don't care and or don't snoop anyways)Lord 666 - Saturday, August 27, 2016 - link
Docs are the worst with keeping on the add-on privacy screen. Have tried the HP monitors with built-in privacy screens, but they were not secure enough. Hoping this new version can be controlled with active directory so docs don't work around the requirement and still not impede direct visibility.tarqsharq - Monday, August 29, 2016 - link
That would be ideal.Given the option, doctors simply would leave it off 90% of the time. Force them to leave it on either via BIOS or AD would be preferable.
And since it's part of the screen, they can't remove it.
It'd be one of those rare circumstances when there is a technical solution for a behavioral problem.
KPOM - Sunday, August 28, 2016 - link
This is a good idea and HP should put them on all their Elitebooks. They used to have a slot for inserting a film, but on the one I have, the film needs to be taped on. This is annoying and not very secure. The FN-key setting is much more convenient.