Asklemmy

47748 readers

500 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 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks 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

[–] Buelldozer 2 points 3 weeks ago

You should also be changing with time to take advantage of such technological growth.

Whoo boy that's funny, thanks for the chuckle. I've been technology professional so long that I literally predate NAT. To say that I've changed with the time would be an understatement.

TVs are admittedly geared towards single wide screen tasks like the obvious: media consumption.

Huh, media consumption. You mean like Lemmy or any other web media?

That’s what additional monitors can be used for; but the point is with a single wide monitor you don’t have to run a second monitor.

Here's where we diverge and despite considering the issue for several hours now I'm still not sure if this is a generational issue or something else. Obviously I'm from the time before widescreen and it looks like to me like you're trying to use a workaround (multiple windows on a single screen) to justify what is objectively a downgrade in display technology.

You are in essence saying "Yes I know the monitor doesn't have enough vertical space but you are supposed to use the extra horizontal space to overcome that." I am going to counter by saying that computer monitors shouldn't be 16x9, that's a TV / Movie format forced into the computer industry by display makers who wanted to leverage their investment in television panels to produce cheap computer monitors. In short you are forcing yourself to find ways to work around display tech that doesn't fit the use case; the screen is wider than it needs to be while not being tall enough.

Amusingly I was discussing this with a peer about an hour ago and he brought up ultra wide monitors like the Samsung Odyssey QD-OLED G9 (5120x1440) and after looking at it we decided that a monitor with the same physical width (48") but double the physical height (20" vs 40") and double the horizontal resolution (2880) would be near perfect. With such a monitor there would be so much real estate that app windows would stay large enough to be readable while still being capable of displaying lots of data vertically.

You could mount one vertically, you could use different sized displays, you could stack them.

Ahhh, now we hit the rub. I do a lot of remote GUI work and what I'm dropping into expects widescreen and uses all of it. Downscaling that into an app window makes the problem worse because it leaves large areas unused horizontally and there's still not enough vertical. I could flip a monitor to portrait but then it's too narrow to be handled correctly because what was a lack of vertical resolution has now become a lack of horizontal resolution. This is another symptom of 16:19 being a bad aspect ratio for computer displays.

Be your own person.

This person is seriously considering a pair of frameless ultra widescreen displays in a vertical stack. Expensive AF but potentially oh so usable.

You do you with multiple app windows squished to fit into today's displays. If it works for you then it works for you.

Enjoy your day.