Asklemmy

47238 readers

1107 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Why aren't computer monitors more commonly square, specifically in the workplace? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by Quicky@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Almost all business applications have horizontal menus and ribbons that take up a decent percentage of a landscape monitor instead of utilising the "spare" screen space on the left or right, and a taskbar usually sits at the bottom or top of the screen eating up even more space (yes I know this can be changed but it's not the default).

Documents are traditionally printed/read in portrait which is reflected on digital documents.

Programmers often rotate their screens to be portrait in order to see more of the code.

Most web pages rarely seem to make use of horizontal real estate, and scrolling is almost universally vertical. Even phones are utilised in portrait for the vast majority of time, and many web pages are designed for mobile first.

Beyond media consumption and production, it feels like the most commonly used workplace productivity apps are less useful in landscape mode. So why aren't more office-based computer screens giant squares instead of horizontal rectangles?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Quicky@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (11 children)

Yeah. Strange that in general the applications themselves haven't transitioned with the hardware. Every office desktop seems to have a widescreen, but every office application still has its menus along the top by default, and does little to take advantage of the increased horizontal space.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (3 children)

It's also about the lease common denominator a 16:9 screen will show the aspect ratio of a 4:3 but a 4:3 won't show a 16:9. The whole point of a 16:9 was to fit all common ratios without distortion.

[–] Quicky@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Won't they both show 16:9 or 4:3 but with black bars either vertically or horizontally?

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but to show a 16:9 on a 4:3 it would be so small you would have more than half your screen taken up by black bars. It's the whole reason 16:9 was created to also help with the flat and scope film formats. To finally get rid of the awful practice of pan and scan.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That just isn’t true. Viewing 16:9 on 4:3 doesn’t mean half your screen is black bars.

load more comments (7 replies)