3 ms·
Good luck trying this with a 16:9 display. When it's rotated, a 1920×1080 resolution just isn't wide enough.
by applecore 12y ago
Good luck trying this with a 16:9 display. When it's rotated, a 1920×1080 resolution just isn't wide enough.
- rayiner 12y agoAny website that isn't happy with 700-800 pixels horizontally is broken (I'm looking at you Westlaw). Narrow columns of text are just better: http://www.ninjapost.com/blog/on-the-importance-of-narrow-columns http://www.ninjapost.com/blog/on-the-importance-of-narrow-co....
- eli 12y agoFine, so lots of the websites I read are broken. I still need to read them though.
- scarygliders 12y agoI find I like things the opposite way - if I want to read narrow columns of text, I'll read a newspaper. My browser is not a newspaper, however, and I prefer sites that expand to fit the browser's width. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that sites that enforce this kind of narrow text (an exaggeration in order to make a point I must confess), to be entirely off-putting, and liable to lose a reader, and to have their bounce rate increased. These types of sites usually have huge columns of white space at either side of their text - space which could be put to better use displaying text, rather than trying to dictate my browsing/reading experience.
- rayiner 12y agoWe're talking about layouts that prevent you from making the window narrower than 1080 pixels.
- Bud 12y agoNobody should be buying 16:9 monitors for computers to begin with. They aren't suitable.
- baq 12y agoyou mean, nobody should be selling them, but ignorant buyers (== most of the market) look for 'Full HD' sticker instead of actually asking for advice. i guess somebody should invent a 'Better than Full HD' sticker.