this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
262 points (83.4% liked)

Technology

60112 readers
2132 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Why did UI's turn from practical to form over function?

E.g. Office 2003 vs Microsoft 365

Office 2003

It's easy to remember where everything is with a toolbar and menu bar, which allows access to any option in one click and hold move.

Microsoft 365

Seriously? Big ribbon and massive padding wasting space, as well as the ribbon being clunky to use.

Why did this happen?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Naich@lemmings.world 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What makes it even worse is that screens got wider and shorter, but the new designs use more vertical space than before, leaving even less height to do anything in.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

16:9 was pushed on us because it was cheaper to produce on mass for tv and pc. 16:9 was better for movies.

There are some monitors from just before this massive market manipulation and those have 16:10, sometimes with display port before hdmi was even mainstream.

Apple is actually one of the few companies to make the jump from 4:3 to 16:10 avoiding the 16:9 with very few exceptions.

To this day i see people work with old software designed for the area of more vertical screens but doing so on screens designed for movies.

Most people dont even understand what i mean when i explain this. But the good thing is my issue with it was considered a disability so they had to accommodate me with something more sensible.

Sorry long comments but this is a personal vice for me.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I swear I still get letterboxes on a 16:9 television watching at least some movies. And of course I get pillarboxes for days watching "fullscreen" pan & scan DVDs or anything shot for TV before 2010.

16:10 is a pretty good laptop aspect ratio, but on the desktop I don't think I'm giving up my 21:9 monitor. For gaming it's simply majestic and having enough real estate for CAD and a spreadsheet open side by side and actually get stuff done is something I won't give up.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Actually i have and love my 21:9, but it was a weird journey.

The most common resolution for them is 3440x1440 21:9

At work i use a 2560x1600 16:10

You may see my problem, i was not going to give up those 160 vertical pixels. So i got a 3840x1600 instead…

Which comes down to the same 21:9..

I think the reason its not a problem is cause how rarely your only using a single fullscreen window on such ultrawides.

Majestic for gaming ind.. and the gpu caught fire again.

my RX7900GRE doesn't have any issue pushing 1440p ultrawide.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Ha, but the presence of vertical monitors means we can do this , amirite? We’re just better using the screen space people have …. Who have spent hundreds of dollars extra on extra hardware to make this shitty ui usable

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

My $300 32 inch IPS 16:9 monitor laughs hard at my old $2000 19 inch 4:3 CRT.
If you are on a desktop, it's insane how both cheap and good monitors have become.
Still I absolutely agree, wasting vertical space is more annoying than horizontal.