OSNews

That is only because you have a browser in the left pane. That could be any application, many of which make excellent use of the full width.

Yes, I agree, that 80/20 is limiting and additional customizable splits would be beneficial, but that does not change the fact that your graphics with the "wasted space" comments are incorrectly attributing that to Metro. Because, even with other splits, many of them would still have "wasted space" because the website was explicitly coded as such.

In any case, their usage data obviously indicates that most people focus on their main task to the exclusion of other windows. And that aligns with the real world usage patterns I have seen as well.

This is decidedly untrue. Most websites would lose ALL their whitespace when presented in, say, a 50/50 split.

It's a moot point you're making, though - it's still Metro's fault for not being designed for the real web, but instead, for some non-existing fairytale web.

Thom's right here. I have a tri-monitor setup: a 27" iMac with two 20" monitors attached. You wouldn't want a site to fill screens that size: they become difficult to read. For maximum readability, lines of text should have a certain length and have certain spacing. Text running all the way across a 27" monitor wouldn't work.*

As a result, I never have windows maximised. I tile them so I can see multiple things at once. This approach is useful for developers, designers and content creators. We're going to have problems with Metro's window management. Well, most will: I won't since I use OS X. Having two sites in an 80/20 split makes little sense for tiling web pages. Having two apps (web browser and text editor, or two web browsers) in a 50/50 split makes a lot of sense.

* of course, you can have multiple columns or blocks taking up the full 1920x1080 (or higher), dynamically moved and positioned using responsive layouts, but that brings its own set of challenges.

Edited 2012-06-03 22:44 UTC

Websites are not fixed width solely because wide screens detract from readability, but because they need to reach as wide an audience as possible; therefore, they need to be readable on as many screens and resolutions as possible.

In any case, this has nothing to do with Metro...which was my original point. Put almost any other app (besides a browser) in the left pane, and the content will be used to its fullest.

And yes, as a software engineer, I understand the need for multiple windows and customization options. But in Windows 8, the desktop still exists, so....

I agree wholeheartedly, and I feel that Aero Snap was one of the best additions to Windows since the shift to NTFS. A simple flick to the left with one window and flick to the right with another gives you a perfect 50/50 split. For those of us with 16:9 monitors, it means two complete web pages can be seen side by side. For web developers doing a compatibility check visually between browser versions, this is ideal. I've used it myself at the part time job with Notepad++ full of HTML or CSS on the left, and the web browser on the right. Make a change on the left, hit Ctrl+S, hit F5 on the right and there's no need for cumbersome app switching. It's a workflow-centric wet dream.

I'm also happy to see that some *nix desktop environments have begun to copy Aero Snap and other similar features. Why Microsoft wanted to take a huge leap backwards with fullscreen-only browsing in Metro is beyond comprehension.

Even multiple columns isn't a good solution. It works in print because it is paginated and you can easily view the whole column. (Even newspapers tend to limit the length of columns.) Multiple columns on a web page would force the reader to scroll down then up then down again.

Sorry Tom, but this is the same issue on my 21' Monitor running Windows 7/Linux.

Should we blame them as well for the amount of white space?

You are forced to fullscreen in Windows 7?