3 ms·
> 16:9 is a stupid aspect ratio for a computer monitor if you work mostly with text. Why? I also usually use it with three columns of text, and it works well a
by creata 1y ago
> 16:9 is a stupid aspect ratio for a computer monitor if you work mostly with text.
Why? I also usually use it with three columns of text, and it works well at that aspect ratio.
- globular-toast 1y agoRight, so you essentially use mini 16:27 screens which is a better aspect ratio than 16:9. What you really have to ask yourself is why 16:9 is a better choice than anything else. It wasn't picked because 3 16:27 columns is ideal for text. The main reason we have them is because it's easier for the screen manufacturers to have just one aspect ratio to deal with. With 16:9 we're forced to have three columns per screen, but what if I only need two? What if I want more lines of text per screen? Square seems like a much more obvious middle ground.
- creata 1y agoThat makes sense, thanks. I've seen people give similar praise to 4:3 and 3:2 laptops.
- zahlman 1y ago>The main reason we have them is because it's easier for the screen manufacturers to have just one aspect ratio to deal with. Not just that, but it was an average of aspect ratios considered for the aesthetic of video data. Not text presentation.