Timeline for Why do many sites leave half of each webpage empty?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2017 at 19:57 | comment | added | user | 8 bit color was a really fancy setup in the days of Windows 3.11. Compare What algorithm did Microsoft use to dither colour in early versions of Windows? on Retrocomputing. | |
| Feb 13, 2017 at 1:52 | comment | added | Oddthinking | I was about to post a similar answer - I have two screens - one in portrait and one in landscape, so depending where I drag the browser window... | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 16:53 | comment | added | RomanSt | Or in other words, because wide screens only work well for movies, not text. Fortunately the tablet makers are finally realising this; maybe desktop screen makers will realise this too. | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 13:14 | comment | added | Paŭlo Ebermann | @dotancohen Sorry, my comment wasn't meant as a criticism to your answer, just an observation that it still doesn't quite fit. (I'm also using one of my monitors in portrait mode, though usually not for websites, but for my IDE.) | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 11:44 | comment | added | dotancohen | @PaŭloEbermann: My point wasn't that "my preferred screen layout is the target audience" but rather "no particular screen layout is the target audience. | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 8:45 | comment | added | Paŭlo Ebermann | Your example shows that your vertical screen is still some pixels too narrow (or the website is a few pixels too wide), as there is a horizontal scroll bar. | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 1:01 | comment | added | Jules | @TotZam - probably the designers simply had the still-quite-common 4:3 aspect ratio screens in mind, rather than the 16:9 screen aspect ratio yours appears to be. I do most of my web viewing on a 1280x1024 monitor (I find a 17" 4:3 monitor fits nicely on my desk alongside a 24" 16:9 as the primary display) and stack exchange's design works nicely on that. There's a bit of whitespace on either side (about 90 pixels), but not so much as it appears wasted, and seems like a natural amount to have to me, so I think this is the resolution the site was optimized for. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 21:12 | comment | added | dotancohen | @TotZam: My point wasn't rotated screens per se, but rather differing screen widths. See the text below the image. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 20:37 | comment | added | Tot Zam | I wonder if designers really have rotated screens in mind, but this is still an interesting idea. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 20:25 | history | answered | dotancohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |