4 ms·
Because there's nothing wrong with the traditional UI design with pop up and shadow. Why introduce another ultimately flawed design that is subpar than the prev
by chenster 9y ago
Because there's nothing wrong with the traditional UI design with pop up and shadow. Why introduce another ultimately flawed design that is subpar than the previous one? It's been over 15 years since it's initially introduced by Microsoft, and I still see the usability problem here and there today. 15 years seems like utterly long time to finally prove that it doesn't really work, does it?
The same argument goes to the LCD monitor aspect ratio 16x9 vs. 4x3. The former isn't any better than the latter. In fact, it has 19% LESS of screen real estate of the same screen. The only reason we all now use the 16x9 is because the mfg needed another standard in desperate to push sale because a good LCD monitor can last a very long time than the traditional CRT.
- colejohnson66 9y agoIsn’t the reason 16:9 became popular cinematic more so than manufacturerers?
- AstralStorm 9y agoFor movies you need even more extreme ratios, 16:9 is a compromise that suits nobody. A4 or Letter with some extra on sides is better for most productivity.
- gsich 9y agoA compromise would be 16:10.
- noir_lord 9y ago16:10 rotated is good, I have 2412's at home (1920x1200) and 16:9 at work (2560x1440). The higher res screens win on pixels per inch but are a bit narrow in portrait, what I'd like is 2560x1600 at 24" that would be perfect.
- colejohnson66 9y agoCare to elaborate? Sure, manufactures could’ve done 21:9 (roughly 2.35:1), but from what I’ve seen, that wasn’t practical at the time. 16:9 was a good compromise. Especially for people who stretch 4:3 SDTV content into 16:9 instead of using black boxes; 4:3 content would look horrible on a 21:9 display. Nowadays though, 21:9 is becoming popular, and it has a ratio of 2.333:1 which is pretty close to a cinematic 2:35:1. If only Windows made snapping three windows side by side easier.