|
|
Posted by dorayme on 09/14/07 21:58
In article <slrnfekq5s.9no.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-09-14, mrcakey <nospam@spamispoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't know how it is in other countries but there seems to be quite a
> > proliferation of widescreen monitors in the UK. I was just wondering what
> > approaches people are using to ensure their sites still look good at these
> > resolutions.
>
> A widescreen monitor is good for watching full-screen movies on, but is
> a bit too wide for text, which is generally more readable in slightly
> narrower columns.
>
> So no need to assume people will necessarily maximize their windows.
> Really such a wide monitor is useful because you can have two or three
> windows side-by-side.
Height being more important than width re scrolling, if it was
website browsing that was wanted, widescreen is not the best
choice. Apart from landscape movies, the advantage of a wide
would be ability to have computer related things like directories
side by side. (Which does not apply when using it as a second or
third screen as is my practice). Frankly, I don't like the look
of them! They look mean and squat. The 3 x 4 format is happier,
more honest looking, more noble.
There was a time when wide-screens were much more expensive. I
notice it is getting harder and more expensive to get the 3 x 4
format in LCDs. (Just ordered one, paid a wee extra for the
privilege. Will use it as a second screen to match the already 3
x 4 main one).
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|