• @dejected_warp_core@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 years ago

    $0.02:

    We used to get plenty done with much less screen area, so there’s isn’t really a driving need, per-se. There’s nothing wrong with that workflow, even today.

    That said, more pixels does enable some useful possibilities. IMO, the major difference comes down to using your peripheral vision (which wasn’t possible before) and less background tasking. Both converge on less cognitive load since you don’t need a mental map of what’s in the background (everything is “foreground” now). Instead, you can scan your immediate environment (screen real-estate, physical devices, etc) to find what you want. And I think it’s ultimately a matter of taste: some people will find that overwhelming instead of helpful or useful.

    • luna
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Not a bad take, your $0.02 is worth more than a lot of other people’s (not saying the takes here are bad, just a general statement). I’m far, far on the opposite end of the extreme of some people in this thread; I was comfortable on a single 11" MacBook Air screen". Part of that is certainly my ADHD/autism, in that I can hyperfocus on the thing that’s in the foreground and just swap everything else to disk when I’m not looking at it. I appreciate the recognition that it is all about taste; so many folks tend to state their preferences like they’re objective fact.

      • m_r_butts
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        4:3 monitors were better than 16:9, objective fact, fight me

        • @limelight79@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          No argument from me. If nothing else, they were taller, which is better for many documents, web pages, etc.