Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Sep 2010 18:11 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 439801
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-26
It isn't terrible web page coding, it has more to do with economics.
Ultra wide resolutions are routinely ignored just like IE6 because they are such a small percentage of visitors.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolution-na-monthly-200908-201008
Yes I know about relative widths but that won't help fixed content like image files. Even if all images were vector files you would still have all sorts of optimization issues.
Webpages are built around 14-17 inch screens. That's just the reality of the situation and it won't be changing anytime soon. As laptops continue to be favored over desktops the situation will likely get worse. I hate browsing on ultra-wide monitors for this very reason.
I have actually found that I am more productive on a smaller monitor due to less eye strain from the reduced amount of glare. If I work all day on a 23" monitor my eyeballs feel like they sat through a dozen movies.
Edited 2010-09-08 01:28 UTC