As incentive to clean out and repaint my dark, dingy 10'x10' computer
room with its two giant cigarette-stained CRT monitors, I decided to
use a laptop and LCD monitor-desktop instead. This created the need,
or opened up the opportunity, to design and build a compact table for
the monitor, keyboard, and mouse. There's a lot of design possibility
for this. I had just completed a project using walnut and bubinga
woods, so there were some scraps laying around. There were only enough
scraps, though, to make some kind of wall-mount piece, which I decided
against because of the mobility factor. So I made a free-standing
table out of some 1x12 pine boards that a customer had let me rip out
of an old shoe store he was remodeling, and I don't know whether or not
it looks that great (maybe if it was a birthday present for your
grandmother who lives in a tiny condo) but I'll let you pass judgement
if you like. It's at:
http://www.edswoods.com/appendix.html

wrote in message

So I made a free-standing
table out of some 1x12 pine boards that a customer had let me rip out
of an old shoe store he was remodeling, and I don't know whether or not
it looks that great (maybe if it was a birthday present for your
grandmother who lives in a tiny condo) but I'll let you pass judgement
if you like. It's at:
http://www.edswoods.com/appendix.html


Looks OK to me. Good design for a small room. You still have enough room to
clutter up around it with the mail, bills, etc. While it looks small
compared to a full desk, functionally, it is the same, especially since the
LDC is so narrow. I have about 16" of space between the back of my monitor
to the wall. My old CRT had about 1" of space.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Thanks for the compliment. It's an interesting project. Say a
woodworking teacher was having a class on style, assigning students to
build something a la Duncan Phyfe or Art Deco or Shaker. When
designating the type of furniture to be designed, the teacher would
say, "and I want it to be a computer table."

On 7 May 2005 06:22:33 -0700, wrote:

Thanks for the compliment. It's an interesting project.

As a woodworking project, it looks like you did some nice work.

Design-wise:
1. Looks like either (a) the monitor will be way too close if the
keyboard is at a comfortable distance or (b) the keyboard will be too
far away if the monitor is at a comfortable distance.
2. I'm getting bruises on my ankles just looking at that lower shelf.
(See 1(a) above.)
3. It's way too pretty a piece of furniture to have all those cables
hanging off of it and that doorstop of a CPU sitting next to it.

Say a
woodworking teacher was having a class on style, assigning students to
build something a la Duncan Phyfe or Art Deco or Shaker. When
designating the type of furniture to be designed, the teacher would
say, "and I want it to be a computer table."

I'd be looking for a new teacher. That makes just about as much sense
as asking for a "Louis XIV miter saw station". Conjures up flashbacks
of David Marks' cherry-with-book-matched-koa-doors shop cabinet, but
at least the design of that was (mostly) functional.

Guess I've seen way too many "furniture-styled" computer desks where
the design was grossly compromised to fit the intended function...and
the function didn't work worth a damn either.

Lee

Design-wise:
1. Looks like either (a) the monitor will be way too close if the
keyboard is at a comfortable distance or (b) the keyboard will be too
far away if the monitor is at a comfortable distance.

Is it matter of personal preference or are there ergonomic
standards?
The keyboard could be closer to the lap.
The monitor is 24" from my eyeballs.

2. I'm getting bruises on my ankles just looking at that lower shelf.
(See 1(a) above.)
A critique I'll keep in mind, but you'd be accessing your bag of
Oreos constantly?

3. It's way too pretty a piece of furniture to have all those cables
hanging off of it and that doorstop of a CPU sitting next to it.
Use your imagination and picture a vase of flowers on a slim
pedestal next to the table instead.

That makes just about as much sense
as asking for a "Louis XIV miter saw station". Conjures up flashbacks
of David Marks' cherry-with-book-matched-koa-doors shop cabinet, but
at least the design of that was (mostly) functional.
I'm not trying to be counter-critical, because I want to profit from
what other people have to say - and believe I have from your comments.
But - if you had Louis XIV furniture in a room, where you also wanted a
computer, would you want to put it on something from Office Max? The
miter box is a bad parallel,
maybe I'm better off not knowing who David Marks is, and I'd never make
a bookmatched door shop cabinet. Obviously, with furniture in living
quarters you care about style. Or do you feel that the furniture style
is dictated by the computer no matter where it is placed? A miter box
would look OK temporarily in a Louis XIV room if you were repairing
something but the computer is there quasi-permanently. If the miter
box was there over a period of time I think you'd want to make it as
unobtrusive as possible.
With a Louis XIV miter box stand, of course.

On 7 May 2005 09:53:14 -0700, wrote:

But - if you had Louis XIV furniture in a room, where you also wanted a
computer, would you want to put it on something from Office Max?

No, I'd see if one of those Louis XIV tables had a drawer big enough
to hold a laptop when it wasn't in use. Bottom line, if I wanted that
look of furniture, I wouldn't keep a computer in view in the same room
24/7.

maybe I'm better off not knowing who David Marks is, and I'd never make
a bookmatched door shop cabinet. Obviously, with furniture in living
quarters you care about style. Or do you feel that the furniture style
is dictated by the computer no matter where it is placed?

It depends somewhat on which tail is wagging which dog. The problem
with trying to combine computer desk functionality with a style of
furniture from a radically different era is that both function *and*
style get rather badly compromised as a result. If the computer is
only used a couple hours a week to pay bills etc, maybe you can afford
to skew that compromise toward the style side. I make my living with
one (well, several), so yeah, I'm going to skew the other direction.
But I try to avoid that problem by not keeping my "tools" in rooms
where (an incompatible) style is important to me.

Lee

wrote in message
oups.com...
Design-wise:
1. Looks like either (a) the monitor will be way too close if the
keyboard is at a comfortable distance or (b) the keyboard will be too
far away if the monitor is at a comfortable distance.


I think the view looks a bit skewed. It looks very narrow compared to a
standar desk, but tha tis because the LCD monitor is rather slim and no much
space is needed behind it. My monitor is 24" from my eyes and only 14" from
the desk front. Keyboard sits so that the back is almost on top of the
monitor base.



2. I'm getting bruises on my ankles just looking at that lower shelf.
(See 1(a) above.)


Sitting at my normal sized desk, my knees are only about 8" under the desk
ront. My ankles are well below where he has the shelf so that is not a
question.

I think it just looks "different" than our preconceived notions of what a
computer desk should look like. If it works, that is what counts. Just my
opinion.

On Sat, 07 May 2005 18:07:45 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

[comments you're replying to were actually mine]
2. I'm getting bruises on my ankles just looking at that lower shelf.
(See 1(a) above.)

Sitting at my normal sized desk, my knees are only about 8" under the desk
front.

That "8 inches under the desk front" looks like it will get to the
front of that shelf: as you say, this desk is *much* narrower than
standard. And not everyone tucks their feet back under the chair when
sitting at a desk.

My ankles are well below where he has the shelf so that is not a
question.

Um, ok, do you have the same answer if I change "ankles" to "shins"?

I think it just looks "different" than our preconceived notions of what a
computer desk should look like. If it works, that is what counts.

Absolutely. My question was (and is): "*Does* it work?"

Lee

Lee DeRaud wrote:

On 7 May 2005 09:53:14 -0700, wrote:

But - if you had Louis XIV furniture in a room, where you also wanted a
computer, would you want to put it on something from Office Max?

No, I'd see if one of those Louis XIV tables had a drawer big enough
to hold a laptop when it wasn't in use. Bottom line, if I wanted that
look of furniture, I wouldn't keep a computer in view in the same room
24/7.

maybe I'm better off not knowing who David Marks is, and I'd never make
a bookmatched door shop cabinet. Obviously, with furniture in living
quarters you care about style. Or do you feel that the furniture style
is dictated by the computer no matter where it is placed?

It depends somewhat on which tail is wagging which dog. The problem
with trying to combine computer desk functionality with a style of
furniture from a radically different era is that both function *and*
style get rather badly compromised as a result.

I think that the problem is not so much style as it is trying to turn
something that wasn't designed to hold a computer into a computer table.
The right way to do it would be to say "Now what would Louis XIV's computer
table have looked like if Louis XVI had had a computer?". That's a much
more difficult task though--I certainly don't have the historical knowledge
to do anything like that but it seems to me that it could be done.

If the computer is
only used a couple hours a week to pay bills etc, maybe you can afford
to skew that compromise toward the style side. I make my living with
one (well, several), so yeah, I'm going to skew the other direction.
But I try to avoid that problem by not keeping my "tools" in rooms
where (an incompatible) style is important to me.

Lee

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 15:15:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee DeRaud wrote:

It depends somewhat on which tail is wagging which dog. The problem
with trying to combine computer desk functionality with a style of
furniture from a radically different era is that both function *and*
style get rather badly compromised as a result.

I think that the problem is not so much style as it is trying to turn
something that wasn't designed to hold a computer into a computer table.
The right way to do it would be to say "Now what would Louis XIV's computer
table have looked like if Louis XVI had had a computer?". That's a much
more difficult task though--I certainly don't have the historical knowledge
to do anything like that but it seems to me that it could be done.

Probably route the monitor cables through the inkwell hole. :-)

Seriously, using the word "historical" to describe this thing defines
the problem: if you care about the historical period "look" of the
room, why smack it between the eyes with such a glaring anachronism?

Lee

Lee DeRaud May 7, 3:45 pm

Seriously, using the word "historical" to describe this thing defines
the problem: if you care about the historical period "look" of the
room, why smack it between the eyes with such a glaring anachronism?

There are no burning issues here. The above statement is absolutely
right. The student given the assignment of making the "period" piece
of furniture could make it, at best, fit beautifully into a room but
with a candelabra instead of a computer on top. A more realistic
assignment would be to assess the overall style of a contemporary room
that's in practical use and design a computer table that blends well.

Lee DeRaud wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 15:15:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee DeRaud wrote:

It depends somewhat on which tail is wagging which dog. The problem
with trying to combine computer desk functionality with a style of
furniture from a radically different era is that both function *and*
style get rather badly compromised as a result.

I think that the problem is not so much style as it is trying to turn
something that wasn't designed to hold a computer into a computer table.
The right way to do it would be to say "Now what would Louis XIV's
computer
table have looked like if Louis XVI had had a computer?". That's a much
more difficult task though--I certainly don't have the historical
knowledge to do anything like that but it seems to me that it could be
done.

Probably route the monitor cables through the inkwell hole. :-)

Seriously, using the word "historical" to describe this thing defines
the problem: if you care about the historical period "look" of the
room, why smack it between the eyes with such a glaring anachronism?

Because one wants to sit in one's nice expensive room full of good furniture
instead of in a room full of Staples crap of a vintage contemporary with
that of the computer?

Lee

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Lee DeRaud" wrote in message

Um, ok, do you have the same answer if I change "ankles" to "shins"?


Maybe. Putting my toe to the wall leaves about 6 or 7 inches of space to my
shins, depending on just how I sit. I don' tknow hte dimension of the
shelf.


I think it just looks "different" than our preconceived notions of what a
computer desk should look like. If it works, that is what counts.

Absolutely. My question was (and is): "*Does* it work?"

The OP will have to tell us. My desk site below a window so I have plenty of
room plus and outdoor view if I look up. Sitting that close to a wall may
take some getting used to even if it does work ergonomically.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

On Sun, 08 May 2005 03:18:15 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

The OP will have to tell us. My desk site below a window so I have plenty of
room plus and outdoor view if I look up. Sitting that close to a wall may
take some getting used to even if it does work ergonomically.

Well, yeah, that too.

Ergonomic: a French word that translates roughly as "uncomfortable".

Lee

On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:35:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee DeRaud wrote:

Seriously, using the word "historical" to describe this thing defines
the problem: if you care about the historical period "look" of the
room, why smack it between the eyes with such a glaring anachronism?

Because one wants to sit in one's nice expensive room full of good furniture
instead of in a room full of Staples crap of a vintage contemporary with
that of the computer?

One *might* consider putting one's computer in another room better
suited to the task. Or use my previous suggestion of keeping the
bloody thing out of sight when not in use. Or do as I do: use one's
nice expensive room full of good furniture of a vintage and style
compatible with that of the computer.

Or you could just assume that everything that doesn't look centuries
old must be Staples crap.

Lee

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Lee DeRaud" wrote in message

Um, ok, do you have the same answer if I change "ankles" to "shins"?


Maybe. Putting my toe to the wall leaves about 6 or 7 inches of space
to my shins, depending on just how I sit. I don' tknow hte dimension
of the shelf.


I think it just looks "different" than our preconceived notions of
what a computer desk should look like. If it works, that is what
counts.

Absolutely. My question was (and is): "*Does* it work?"

The OP will have to tell us. My desk site below a window so I have
plenty of room plus and outdoor view if I look up. Sitting that close
to a wall may take some getting used to even if it does work
ergonomically.

When I work at the system for any time at all, I find that I need room for
the mouse to roam, and support for the forearm of my 'mousing arm'. And I
sit further back from the screen than this setup allows.

But I need to get out in the shop more, anyhow.

Patriarch

Lee DeRaud wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:35:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee DeRaud wrote:

Seriously, using the word "historical" to describe this thing defines
the problem: if you care about the historical period "look" of the
room, why smack it between the eyes with such a glaring anachronism?

Because one wants to sit in one's nice expensive room full of good
furniture instead of in a room full of Staples crap of a vintage
contemporary with that of the computer?

One *might* consider putting one's computer in another room better
suited to the task. Or use my previous suggestion of keeping the
bloody thing out of sight when not in use. Or do as I do: use one's
nice expensive room full of good furniture of a vintage and style
compatible with that of the computer.

Or you could just assume that everything that doesn't look centuries
old must be Staples crap.

Well, if it's compatible with the style of the computer it is--they
certainly are not known for superior fit or finish.

Personally I'm of the opinion that anybody who is that concerned about style
needs a life.

Lee

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke May 15, 7:45 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
From: "J. Clarke" - Find messages by
this author
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 19:45:20 -0400
Local: Sun,May 15 2005 7:45 pm
Subject: LCD Monitor Table
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Lee DeRaud wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:35:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee DeRaud wrote:

Seriously, using the word "historical" to describe this thing defines
the problem: if you care about the historical period "look" of the
room, why smack it between the eyes with such a glaring anachronism?

Because one wants to sit in one's nice expensive room full of good
furniture instead of in a room full of Staples crap of a vintage
contemporary with that of the computer?

One *might* consider putting one's computer in another room better
suited to the task. Or use my previous suggestion of keeping the
bloody thing out of sight when not in use. Or do as I do: use one's
nice expensive room full of good furniture of a vintage and style
compatible with that of the computer.

Or you could just assume that everything that doesn't look centuries
old must be Staples crap.

Well, if it's compatible with the style of the computer it is--they
certainly are not known for superior fit or finish.

Personally I'm of the opinion that anybody who is that concerned about
style
needs a life.

Lee

I'm sure Ted Kluzinsky feels the same way.

On 10 Jun 2005 06:26:41 -0700, wrote:

J. Clarke May 15, 7:45 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
From: "J. Clarke" - Find messages by
this author
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 19:45:20 -0400
Local: Sun,May 15 2005 7:45 pm
Subject: LCD Monitor Table
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Lee DeRaud wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:35:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
[snip]
Personally I'm of the opinion that anybody who is that concerned about
style needs a life.

Personally I'm of the opinion that anybody who posts an inane response
to a thread that died nearly a month ago needs a life.

Lee