But these numbers shouldn't be used to determine what size to make a website. I'd guess most people with 1920x1080 monitors don't maximize their browser.
Many web sites are not designed for people who retain older technology for financial (or other) reasons. Every web developer should befriend someone over the age of 60 and watch their surfing habits.
Using someone else's computer with a browser that isn't fully maximised irritates me, but I generally only see that on Macs. I don't think it's very common on Windows.
Actually, that pixel density is typically too high because they sit so far back. From http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/08/high-definiti...
"A survey made some years ago by Bernard Lechner, a television engineer at the former RCA Laboratories, near Princeton, New Jersey, showed that the median eye-to-screen distance in American homes was nine feet. At that distance, a 1080p HDTV set (with a screen 1,920 pixels wide and 1,080 pixels high) needs to be at least 69-inch across a diagonal if viewers are to see all the detail it offers."
When I play games on my XBox, I need to pull up a chair so I can sit about 5-6 feet from my TV. My couch is about 10' from the TV, and I simply can't make out the detail as well from that distance.
16:9 is ridiculous for anything except watching HD television. (It also now works well for gaming, but only because developers decided to cater to widescreen.)
16:10 is the widest that makes sense for any day-to-day computing tasks, yet it's getting harder and harder to find; forget reasonable 4:3 types.
Unless you're going with IPS displays, the portrait mode of a monitor is somewhat compromised.
I still hate 16x9. Please give me back my 4:3.
This particular monitor is also 1920x1200, which is a pretty good resolution, WUXGA I think, like the big Dell Precision I used to have.
Except you are not going to get 81x270 characters in portrait mode unless the characters are square, as in Chinese script.
Beyond that, I feel like computer buyers everywhere have been duped. In 2003, there were 15" laptops with QXGA (2048x1536) screens. by 2008, the best you could get in a 15" laptop was WUXGA (1920x1200). Now, with a few soon to disappear exceptions, it's FHD (1920x1050). Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter.
A friend of mine said the term around his house for these HD displays is "short screens."
I have two 1650x1050 displays side-by-side (so, twice as a wide as "ridiculous"), and I run three 80-char width terminals or two web browsers side by side per display, using xmonad. I like it.
Might consider a second 1920 by 1080 to get to 4 million pixels on the cheap
(Edit: Others have discussed the viewing angle issues with rotating a screen, but it is an option.)
Food for thought: can you create a Fresnel anamorphic lens?
I ended up getting a Thinkpad W500 from a Lenovo outlet.
I should probably start looking for replacement parts now because when this one goes bad I'll again have to fight against whatever the media-consuming, non-developer market is being sold.
The migration of the monitor industry to 16:9 wasn't one sided. Given the option between 4:3 and 16:9, users overwhelmingly chose 16:9. Eventually the demand was so unbalanced that 4:3 became less common.
Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine.
The GP claimed that it was "ridiculous". What horse shit.
LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt."
> Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine.
In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet.
I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right".
So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.
They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand.
From the link in my previous post, Lenovo could not keep using 4:3 screens because they had "all but disappeared from the market."
The vast majority of netbooks released in the 2007-2010 range were widescreen, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that 4:3 screens were easier for Apple to source for the iPad.
Or the claim that non-Apple tablet makers aren't simply choosing the cheaper and more common screen format. None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why?
I do wonder if there was some consumer demand, or at least rising consumer acquiescence, because (I'm speculating) as laptops have become less expensive and more powerful the market consisted of relatively fewer developers and business people and more folks who see their computer as an entertainment system.
It probably has been used as a gimmick competitive advantage ("even more widescreen than before!") but I bet the 16:10->16:9 move was predominantly due to screen supply and cost.
Most likely, while the percentage of consumers who would be complaining has rapidly dropped.
Also, if you've never had a laptop before then it's all pretty much the same.
Aside from some dirty cheap Archos 4:3 tablets (which were actually 4:3, and still dirt cheap, before Apple unveiled the mighty iPad), they don't because it isn't a benefit. Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionable starting point.
Regarding the cost-cutting, it absolutely was cost-cutting to move from 16:10 to 16:9, and few complained because really is it different enough for many to care? It was not cost cutting to move from 4:3 to 16:10 beyond that users demanded a wide screen overwhelmingly, not least because playing video on our desktop became so common.
Like how your opinion that 16:9 is better somehow isn't a questionable starting point? Sure, you might like 16:9 more, but most people seem to prefer 4:3 to 16:9. I myself have a 4:3 Android tablet (a mongrel: the HP TouchPad) and I have to say, between using this and a Transformer, I much prefer 4:3 on a tablet. It's easy to hold portrait or landscape, whereas with a 16:9 display, holding it portrait is awkward. Not only that, but 4:3 portrait mimics a book page much better than 16:9 does and so I feel more comfortable with PDFs on 4:3 than 16:9.
I think monitors should go back 16:10 (compromise between screen real estate and widescreen appeal) and tablets stay at 4:3 (only because of the use cases for a tablet).
How? You hear this same claim all the time, never with any explanation. It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet. They're simply going unused.
Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience, because transport controls, captions, and data about the video can be presented above or below the image area, instead of over it.
What? Of course you are. Have you never used Netflix on an iPad? Gigantic black bars above and below. I suppose you could grossly distort the image and vertically expand it, but no thanks.
Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience
Absolutely preposterous. So preposterous it merits no direct response.
Just because the pixel exists doesn't mean you are required to use it.
Opinions like yours are apparently common, so what manufacturers do is remove those areas. You get less pixels, and like it better. Totally preposterous.
Taller screens are better - even when watching widescreen. The extra space is useful for playback controls, closed captions, etc.
You also fail to say why putting controls, captions, and chapter indications in the empty space instead of OVER THE VIDEO IMAGE is "preposterous." How is having the video obscured with overlays BETTER?
In short: Your response fails utterly to support your claim.
I have a glossy, wide display because that's the only 13" OS X computer money can buy. Please don't include me in an argument by majority. :(
What the heck....pray tell me that this is some sort of parody or satire?
Those 42" 1080p screens were "retina" displays before Apple decided to excuse lazy graphical scaling with the title. You are so off base holding Apple as the leader that you must be playing soccer.
EDIT: Downvotes, yet the parent is making such an astonishingly revisionist claim that it should be obliterated purely for such fawning ignorance.
I used to have a 14" Dell with a 1600×1200 resolution back in 2008. But in 2012 you really have to pay extra for something like that.
15.6 inch and 1366x768 is just incredible considering the 4 inch iPhone is 960x640 nowadays.
I won't upgrade because the "upgrade" has 1920x1080, and being a Sysadmin, vertical pixels lost means less lines in my term and more scrolling. It's a shame that we moved from 16x10 to 16x9 to save a few bucks. Last I checked, Apple and levovo (w-series) still offer 1920x1200, but my laptop cos $280 used, and the lenovo or MBP would be close to 3 grand.
I'm a hardware engineer, and the more pixels I can pack into my display, the more I can see in my waveform viewer. It makes a real difference to me.
I can't say I fully understand the trend to almost-exclusive 16x9, either. I hear enough people complain about it that I'd have thought there would be a market for a 15.4" 1920x1200, even if you had to pay a premium for it.
I've read that this is because of the influence of TVs: pretty much every LCD maker is setup to cut panels in this form factor, and there isn't enough demand to make computer makers change this.
A couple years ago I saw a Lenovo blog post about how they could consider making taller laptop screens if, say, they got $20K pre-orders, but even then it would've been very, very expensive for the clients, and I don't think the idea ever went anywhere.
I have never seen that before.
I hoped increased demand after iPad's success would make IPS and 4:3 reappear on notebooks .
Do you think there's anything wrong with fitting the essential information within 1024 pixels, but then putting non-essential stuff to the right of that?
I don't think the guy that just bought a brand-sparkling new 27" cinema display really wants all the websites he visits to now start filling his entire screen -- he bought it to do multiple things at once.
Speaking from experience, I keep all my browsers at around a 1024px viewport and I get frustrated when I visit a site and need to scroll horizontally.
I think the best target size for webpages is still 1024px with 960px^ as its main content area size. The 960px grid is still very strong and useful and there's nothing wrong with it -- I would even go as far as to say that it's a "standard". (http://960.gs).
To me 1024/960 page size is the web's A4/Legal.
^Doesn't have to be 960px obviously...
Very few sites aim for 960 as their minimum. I tried side-by-side viewing on a 1920x1080 monitor and it really didn't work out in most places. Even parts of Wikipedia (such as tables) will create horizontal scroll bars on certain articles.
I did notice that a lot of websites aim for 1024 instead of 960 because I saw many pages that almost fit. Please, if you can aim for 1024, aim for 960 instead.
 As the parent post said, it probably isn't quite 960 when you take window borders into account.
If its a site I regularly visit that is not a problem though, but what is non-essential to you might be essential to me so I'd be happy if there were small duplicate links in the footer or something.
I guess it depends, but in general anything besides ads further than 1024 pixels to the right annoys me.
- you can split your emacs frame into multiple columns with C-x 3 (and balance them with C-x +), this way you can see two or even three files side by side.
- you can use emacs follow-mode which creates one virtual window split into multiple buffers, which is very useful for 768px high displays.
EDIT: Oh, and I'm using a 27" iMac, so I have lots of screen real estate.
Now, just about all cheap laptops are 1366x768. Everything else is all over the map!
Realistically, I know it's "when", but I'll stick with the denial a little longer.
Check out the Starbucks website and manipulate the window size. It automatically changes stylesheets based on window size.
It turns out that GPUs like the popular Intel integrated gfx chips requires each lines of your framebuffer to be 64 bytes aligned. And yet, when using a 1366 wide resolution in 32bit per pixel mode, the visible length in bytes of a framebuffer is 5464, which is not a multiple of 64.
The operating system circumvent the problem by allocating 5504 bytes for each line of the framebuffer instead of 5464. It represent a loss of 30KB of unused memory.
Anyway, you're probably think I'm mad to care about those things instead of pixel density or aspect ratio, and 30KB is definitely meaningless compared to the memory footprint of a complete framebuffer (which is around 4-5MB). But you know these people who can't stand having the volume bar set to an odd number on their television set ? I'm exactly like them, why in hell would you not use an horizontal resolution which is not a multiple of 64 ?
You can take a look at their sample size per country here: http://gs.statcounter.com/sample-size/StatCounterGlobalStats...
I use the 960 grid from http://960.gs/ when I build a site, and I find that sites on my 1680 x 1050 monitor look great at 960 pixels wide.
I would assume that sticking with a 960 pixel wide grid is still optimal, but I'd love to hear people's points of view.
+ others from the csv file below 3%
I recently moved from 1280x800 to 1440x900 myself.
Calling it responsive design? Do your job and show the website on any device. You noobs are embarrassing. PHP blows, which is probably why you suck so bad.
Why exclude mobile?
It seems silly to call the iPad a mobile browser. A website for a phone screen scaled up to the iPad usually looks ridiculous.
As far as I know, the 11" MBA is the only Mac to ever offer that resolution.