5 ms·

Personally, I actually prefer the 16:9 aspect ratio for any screen that has sufficient raw vertical resolution to not hinder productivity. I feel that once a d

Personally, I actually prefer the 16:9 aspect ratio for any screen that has sufficient raw vertical resolution to not hinder productivity. I feel that once a device gets past the point where the lack of vertical resolution limits productivity, the marginal utility offered by even more vertical resolution becomes rather insignificant, to the point where I'd probably benefit more from having more horizontal resolution for things like snapping windows side-by-side and not having black bars on 16:9 video.

ajross 11y ago
Really? I find exactly the opposite: the marginal utility of more vertical space (for code, mostly) continues increasing all the way until I have to physically move my neck to see it. I have a 24" monitor next to my main screen oriented vertically for exactly this purpose.
- lewisl9029 11y ago
  I'm generally more productive with a split screen view for code, with either different files on each side, or different parts of the same file on each side. This kind of workflow needs quite a bit of horizontal resolution to work well.
  - jameshart 11y ago
    Interesting - a 16:9 screen splits into two 8:9 screens - almost squares. A 3:2 screen splits into two 3:4 screens, much more useful document-style aspect ratios. That said, with the surface/surfacebook, we're talking about small 12-13 inch screens anyway, not enough physical real estate for that kind of work. You'll likely connect to a larger external screen if you're looking for a splitscreen workspace.
    - e12e 11y ago
      Reading this now in a roughly 2:1 split on my Thinkpad t420s (16:9, 1600px:900px). On the right, i have a terminal window, with no margins, and no window decorations. On the left Firefox with HN open, which because of the "forced" margins set by stylesheets, end up being a squarish "page", with a regularish (portrait) text block in the middle... -FF---------Term-- mmm mm |mmmmmm mmm mm |mmmmmm mmm mm |mmmmmm |mmmmmm mmm mm |mmmmmm |mmmmmm |mmmmmm So while some people probably prefer a 1:1 split, I usually end up with a 2:1 or maybe even closer to 3:1.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
Is the Surface Pro anywhere near the point where the lack of vertical resolution limits productivity? Myself, I find that 16:9 is preferable only for monitors 32 inches and larger. Below that size I'd like to have more vertical space.
- lewisl9029 11y ago
  For me, 1824 px of vertical resolution is more than enough. Whether or not 7.9" of vertical physical space is enough to make use of the native resolution without scaling is an entirely different matter. I haven't tried it yet so I can't be sure myself.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    In my experience, quadrupling the resolution (aka going retina) lets you go lower the font 1 point, giving you about 10% more vertical content on equivalently sized screens. So if you're happy with a 19" 1080p (9.3" vertical) screen, then I suspect that you'll be fine.
sliverstorm 11y ago
I am itching for a 4:3 simply because of digitized print media, e.g. books and PDFs and magazines. You need a 12.2" 16:9 to display a magazine page at the same actual size as a 10" 4:3 3:2 is a compromise play, fitting video pretty well and requiring only a 10.8" screen to match the 10" 4:3 on print media. That's setting completely aside questions of what aspect is simply most natural for a tablet- how comfortable it is to hold, how well it functions in both landscape and portrait, etc
- rchaud 11y ago
  I've been reading magazines and books on tablets for a while now, and while I agree that 4:3 portrait is naturally more suited to reading, most magazines are printed at an actual size of A4 paper or larger. So even on a 9.7 inch iPad, the content is being shrunk to "fit to vertical height". This can make the content harder to read, as you're not viewing it at the actual size it was designed for. The alternative is to read it in landscape mode "Fit to horizontal width", but with visual clarity, the trade-off is having to scroll to read the whole page, which is annoying, and reminiscent of scrolling through a web page.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Yeah, even on the ten inchers there is some shrinking. We would really need a 11-inch 4:3 or something thereabouts. Although to me, the ideal solution would be auto-cropping (or auto-zooming) the margins. The actual content is often only, say, 9" by 6.5". The tablet bezel serves as a margin for us, we don't need double margins.
    - rchaud 11y ago
      The auto-cropping works for most magazines but not all. Businessweek is notorious for using margins to include photo captions, graph legends and related articles. Most mags also use the margins to include page numbers. Source: used to crop margins on magazine PDFs when reading on a 16:10 Android tablet. Not worth the hassle.
- amyjess 11y ago
hollerith 11y ago
I prefer 16:9 too (for tablets, which is the topic of this story) but for a completely different reason: it is easier for someone with large hands such as myself to pick one up from a flat surface with one hand (in a "beer can" grip). (For laptops and desktops, I prefer 4:3 as long as I have at least 1280 pixels of horizontal resolution.)
- amyjess 11y ago
  I generally favor 16:9 for phones, 16:10 for compact tablets (e.g. Nexus 7), 3:2 for large tablets and small laptops, and 4:3 for midsize-to-large laptops and desktops. - Devices meant to be used in one hand should have aspect ratios that minimize width in portrait mode for ergonomic reasons. - Laptops become very unwieldy past a certain width. From personal experience, a 14" 4:3 laptop is as wide as I'd ever want to deal with. 12" and below can be 3:2, though. - Tablets should shoot for something in between, in part because they're used for media that varies wildly from 4:3 magazines to 16:9 movies to everything in between. I'm slightly biased here because I love reading comic books on tablets, those are naturally 3:2, and from personal experience my Surface Pro 3 is perfect for that purpose. 16:10 is a nice compromise for tablets that are small enough that holding it in one hand is still feasible (I speak from personal experience with a 2012 Nexus 7). - Desktop monitors should maximize space in all directions. Square would be ideal, but I don't think anyone has ever made square monitors in significant volumes, so I just say 4:3 instead. Actually, I have to admit that I'd probably prefer a square screen for desktops, but I don't think square monitors have ever been made in significant numbers.

ajross 11y ago

Really? I find exactly the opposite: the marginal utility of more vertical space (for code, mostly) continues increasing all the way until I have to physically move my neck to see it. I have a 24" monitor next to my main screen oriented vertically for exactly this purpose.

lewisl9029 11y ago
I'm generally more productive with a split screen view for code, with either different files on each side, or different parts of the same file on each side. This kind of workflow needs quite a bit of horizontal resolution to work well.
- jameshart 11y ago
  Interesting - a 16:9 screen splits into two 8:9 screens - almost squares. A 3:2 screen splits into two 3:4 screens, much more useful document-style aspect ratios. That said, with the surface/surfacebook, we're talking about small 12-13 inch screens anyway, not enough physical real estate for that kind of work. You'll likely connect to a larger external screen if you're looking for a splitscreen workspace.
  - e12e 11y ago
    Reading this now in a roughly 2:1 split on my Thinkpad t420s (16:9, 1600px:900px). On the right, i have a terminal window, with no margins, and no window decorations. On the left Firefox with HN open, which because of the "forced" margins set by stylesheets, end up being a squarish "page", with a regularish (portrait) text block in the middle... -FF---------Term-- mmm mm |mmmmmm mmm mm |mmmmmm mmm mm |mmmmmm |mmmmmm mmm mm |mmmmmm |mmmmmm |mmmmmm So while some people probably prefer a 1:1 split, I usually end up with a 2:1 or maybe even closer to 3:1.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Is the Surface Pro anywhere near the point where the lack of vertical resolution limits productivity? Myself, I find that 16:9 is preferable only for monitors 32 inches and larger. Below that size I'd like to have more vertical space.

lewisl9029 11y ago
For me, 1824 px of vertical resolution is more than enough. Whether or not 7.9" of vertical physical space is enough to make use of the native resolution without scaling is an entirely different matter. I haven't tried it yet so I can't be sure myself.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  In my experience, quadrupling the resolution (aka going retina) lets you go lower the font 1 point, giving you about 10% more vertical content on equivalently sized screens. So if you're happy with a 19" 1080p (9.3" vertical) screen, then I suspect that you'll be fine.

sliverstorm 11y ago

I am itching for a 4:3 simply because of digitized print media, e.g. books and PDFs and magazines. You need a 12.2" 16:9 to display a magazine page at the same actual size as a 10" 4:3 3:2 is a compromise play, fitting video pretty well and requiring only a 10.8" screen to match the 10" 4:3 on print media. That's setting completely aside questions of what aspect is simply most natural for a tablet- how comfortable it is to hold, how well it functions in both landscape and portrait, etc

rchaud 11y ago
I've been reading magazines and books on tablets for a while now, and while I agree that 4:3 portrait is naturally more suited to reading, most magazines are printed at an actual size of A4 paper or larger. So even on a 9.7 inch iPad, the content is being shrunk to "fit to vertical height". This can make the content harder to read, as you're not viewing it at the actual size it was designed for. The alternative is to read it in landscape mode "Fit to horizontal width", but with visual clarity, the trade-off is having to scroll to read the whole page, which is annoying, and reminiscent of scrolling through a web page.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Yeah, even on the ten inchers there is some shrinking. We would really need a 11-inch 4:3 or something thereabouts. Although to me, the ideal solution would be auto-cropping (or auto-zooming) the margins. The actual content is often only, say, 9" by 6.5". The tablet bezel serves as a margin for us, we don't need double margins.
  - rchaud 11y ago
    The auto-cropping works for most magazines but not all. Businessweek is notorious for using margins to include photo captions, graph legends and related articles. Most mags also use the margins to include page numbers. Source: used to crop margins on magazine PDFs when reading on a 16:10 Android tablet. Not worth the hassle.
amyjess 11y ago

hollerith 11y ago

I prefer 16:9 too (for tablets, which is the topic of this story) but for a completely different reason: it is easier for someone with large hands such as myself to pick one up from a flat surface with one hand (in a "beer can" grip). (For laptops and desktops, I prefer 4:3 as long as I have at least 1280 pixels of horizontal resolution.)

amyjess 11y ago
I generally favor 16:9 for phones, 16:10 for compact tablets (e.g. Nexus 7), 3:2 for large tablets and small laptops, and 4:3 for midsize-to-large laptops and desktops. - Devices meant to be used in one hand should have aspect ratios that minimize width in portrait mode for ergonomic reasons. - Laptops become very unwieldy past a certain width. From personal experience, a 14" 4:3 laptop is as wide as I'd ever want to deal with. 12" and below can be 3:2, though. - Tablets should shoot for something in between, in part because they're used for media that varies wildly from 4:3 magazines to 16:9 movies to everything in between. I'm slightly biased here because I love reading comic books on tablets, those are naturally 3:2, and from personal experience my Surface Pro 3 is perfect for that purpose. 16:10 is a nice compromise for tablets that are small enough that holding it in one hand is still feasible (I speak from personal experience with a 2012 Nexus 7). - Desktop monitors should maximize space in all directions. Square would be ideal, but I don't think anyone has ever made square monitors in significant volumes, so I just say 4:3 instead. Actually, I have to admit that I'd probably prefer a square screen for desktops, but I don't think square monitors have ever been made in significant numbers.