Asklemmy

47180 readers

722 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 3 days ago* (last edited 3 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 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think you might be missing the point though.

Not everyone needs to multitask in two apps simultaneously. In fact most of the time, most workers are only going to be working on a single application. If that application isn't making full use of the widescreen, then saying "just fill that space with another app" doesn't solve anything. In fact if anything, it potentially reduces the real estate the main app had.

Yes they now have two apps open, but they're still only working on one. They don't "need" the other one, so why not design the primary app or web page to more appropriately scale to the display?

It's got absolutely fuck all to do with "what can the user do to better utilise the technology" and everything to do with UI design.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not everyone needs to multitask in two apps simultaneously.

No, that's when you just accept that there is additional space available to you for when (not if, WHEN) it becomes necessary.

Just because you don't need it 100% of the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't have it for when you do.

[–] Quicky@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This makes no sense at all. UIs are justified in not making full use of a widescreen monitor because at some point someone might want to use another at the same time?

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

UIs are justified in not pointlessly expanding into space they have 0 use for; leaving it available for other actually useful applications.

When I go to the buffet, I take what I'm actually going to eat, leaving what I don't need for others; I don't just empty the table into a bag knowing full well I won't eat it all.