Asklemmy

47328 readers

505 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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

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

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (25 children)

the most commonly used workplace productivity apps are less useful in landscape mode.

They aren't less useful, they just don't take advantage of the extra space on their own. A wide monitor allows you to put multiple windows side-by-side without the expense of an additional monitor though.

With that in mind; a wide monitor is useful for document editing, web browsing, media viewing/production, gaming, and can even be rotated (stand/mount permitting) for a tall view if desired.

A square monitor is much more limited.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Not if the square monitor is the same width as the widescreen though.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

A square monitor the same width as a widescreen is 77% larger overall = more expensive. (both in terms of materials and horsepower to run it)

There's not enough benefit to justify the cost of stretching both dimensions; we use the width more than the height.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

we use the width more than the height.

Tell that to my scrolling finger.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Rotate your wide monitor to be tall.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Genius.

Essentially if you want to use a monitor horizontally that's fine, if you want to rotate it vertically that's also fine, if you want to have equal horizontal and vertical real estate you're out of your mind.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (22 replies)