On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 08:52:28 UTC, Dmitry wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 08:04:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
I use exclusively 4:3 and 3:4, 1600*1280, 1280*1024,
1024*1280, 1024*768 and 768*1024.
Yep, you are one of that 5%.
That's silliness, and not how percentages work at all. To suggest
that 95% of people that go to dlang.org have widescreens because
95% of some other user base is nonsense.
The reason web designers have a strong preference towards tall
sites vs wide sites is twofold. Firstly, its hard to collect
meaningful statistics on their own users, because browser
dimensions might be set based on the existing site design.
Secondly they need to design for mobile screens anyways, because
request headers suggest they account for over 50% of internet
users. That said, that's something that should also be
specifically checked per website.
Widescreen is for movies...
No.
Opinion. I agree with you, but why alienate anyone? It's not like
narrow websites are unusable. They're just not your preference.
For people like Ola, wide websites are legitimately unusable.
Besides, many programmers with wide screen does not have
multiple monitors,
Many programmers do not have. But other many programmers have.
I use multiple monitors, 16:9 and 4:3. All studios, where I
worked, uses multiple monitors. Most part of professional
developers, who I personally know, uses multiple monitors.
So, this is not an argument.
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but anecdotal evidence isn't a
legitimate argument to block design changes. Example anecdotal
counter-argument: Even though I have 3 x widescreen monitors, I
generally only have any one web page on a sixth of my total
screen space, which favors a narrow format.
so they need space both for website and editor on same screen.
Firstly, in most cases it will be D documentation. And it
anyway will use left-side menu.
And second - current design already support small width.
To be fair, D's documentation uses a left-side menu, but it
removes the top level navigation (you have to press the logo).
I'd call that more of a design flaw than a feature.
