Very useful to read this, which is what I've mainly found as well, and it makes sense to me. Basically, I suspect most people are using their screens too close to their eyes, and this is caused by the size of everything on those screens being too small. So the backlight is too close to the eyes, and this could be more noticeable and irritating with IPS. Personally I've been benefited by scaling up my displays, putting them further away, and having things zoomed in my browsers. This makes me realize that my displays are too small for their native resolutions because it would be better running them with less scaling further away, but then I wouldn't be able to see them clearly. So 1080p at 27" for example may be ideal instead of 1080p at 22 to 25 inches that is the norm.
Though I'm always impressed looking at my 25er HP low haze screen, which I really think is a fantastic unit for what it is.
1080p on that 25" is not bad at all. Like I say I have scaling and zoom tweaked and the monitor is positioned a good distance from my head, and if my health and sleep are in good form, it's really about all one could ask for. I have brightness turned way down and the stock technicolor color profile with contrast lessened from default 80 down to 45.
"I continued on after work using the U2515H (IPS) late into the morning, reading all straight up black on white. With this viewing distance (42" when sitting back in my chair; 34" when sitting forward) and scaling, this monitor is as comfortable on the eyes as any display I have ever used and probably more so, since CRT gave me dry and red eyes after some long hours (but NEVER eye fatigue). But I also used CRT's up pretty close (most likely wayyy too close).
Any way, I think that having plenty of viewing distance and adjusting scaling accordingly is key (it seems to be an eye convergance issue), along with avoiding displays that flicker via PWM or FRC (if you are sensitive to flicker), sane brightness and contrast (it's definitely a balance), and avoiding forms of blur.
I might just rock the U2515H until 4K 144hz becomes the norm and prices drop so that I can get a 27"-28" 4K 144hz at a sane price. The color, contrast, uniformity, and clarity are suprisingly good on this IPS display, although it can't escape the IPS glow. And it's doubtful, but maybe monitor manufacturers' quality control will see an improvement by then. I almost can't believe how bad some of these displays look that are selling at the $400-600 price point with the uniformity issues, backlight bleed, and way overboard glow. Sure, resolutions and other aspects have improved over the years, but it's crazy to me that display quality has fallen so low with bigger sizes, which I think is another reason to stay as small as practical. I would go ahead and get a 27" 4K 60 hz monitor, but I am seeing so many horror stories on the backlight issues mentioned above that I don't want to get into the IPS panel lottery right now and end up with something significantly worse than what I already have. The U2515H is a bit on the small side, but at least it doesn't look like crap. And I think I only paid $200 or so for it on sale at a big box store locally. Quality wise, it puts the S2716DGR and 32UD60-B to shame. The quality on the 32GK650F is about as good as the U2515H, keeping in mind worse viewing angles of VA but glow with IPS. But I feel that I can't push a 32" monitor back far enough to get my eyes as comfortable as I would like.
Any way, I think that ordering some monitors to try out definitely has not been a waste of time. I learned that I want 4k or greater, that I want 27-28" (definitely not 32" or greater), that IPS can be comfortable on my eyes (although I think VA could be more comfortable at 27"-28") when everything is in check (brightness, no flicker, more viewing distance), that viewing distance plays a big role in eye comfort, that off white text on a little darker than mid grey background is the most comfortable for me to read on a display, and probably a few other things which I am forgetting to mention. Oh yea, and that high refresh rates are nice, but that 60 hz is really fine for non-competitive gaming.
And on that last point specifically, after playing around quite a bit with frame rate capping, I feel that it is a giant leap going from 30 fps to 60 fps, less than half more of that going from 60 fps to 120 fps, and past that I couldn't say. I doubt that I could pick out 120 hz and 144 hz in a blind test, and in some cases I might have a hard time picking out 60 fps from 120 fps. But going from 30 fps to 60 fps is so much of an improvement. Console gamers don't know how bad they have it, but millions of people are gaming on consoles nonetheless."
Just to add, I could be wrong about wanting a lower resolution relative to screen size. Someone says, "The lack of scaling for 4K for some gui's can be a pain here and there, but no way I would go back to a lower PPI. Text is so much better on 140 PPI than with 115. It could still be better for sure, but this is fine. In other words, this PPI is minimum for me."
It's probably better actually to do some scaling vs running natively without scaling. 1080p on 25" may be perfect because with some scaling you can keep it a perfect distance from your head.
More useful information I read: "I was very skeptical but I broke down and ordered blue blocker glasses from Felix Gray. They have made a huge difference for me. Some days it was getting so bad I could barely see. I felt like I was going blind."