this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
57 points (91.3% liked)

Asklemmy

47180 readers
733 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
57
Why aren't computer monitors more commonly square, specifically in the workplace? (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Almost all business applications have horizontal menus and ribbons that take up a decent percentage of a landscape monitor instead of utilising the "spare" screen space on the left or right, and a taskbar usually sits at the bottom or top of the screen eating up even more space (yes I know this can be changed but it's not the default).

Documents are traditionally printed/read in portrait which is reflected on digital documents.

Programmers often rotate their screens to be portrait in order to see more of the code.

Most web pages rarely seem to make use of horizontal real estate, and scrolling is almost universally vertical. Even phones are utilised in portrait for the vast majority of time, and many web pages are designed for mobile first.

Beyond media consumption and production, it feels like the most commonly used workplace productivity apps are less useful in landscape mode. So why aren't more office-based computer screens giant squares instead of horizontal rectangles?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I suspect the answer is because computer monitors evolved from televisions and video monitors, which standardised on 4:3 and, later, 16:9 for media viewing.

There was a brief period during the switch to LED when 3:2 and then 16:10 looked like they could take over, but 16:9 made a comeback and monitors have remained mostly in lockstep with modern TVs ever since.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I kinda liked 16:10, briefly had a work monitor with it.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

That was the absolute best. 1920x1200.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can still buy 1920x1200 monitors, I have two that are less than 5 years old.

Absolutely worth it for remotely accessing 1920x1080 systems.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I could, but ive got triple 27" 4K now. I dont really need more monitors

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

For me 16:10 was so functionally identical to 16:9 that I never bothered to make the switch personally