Was 4:3 aspect ratio better for web design?

Was 4:3 aspect ratio better for web design?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what? just don't put your web browser to fullscreen

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP but I think he is asking if websites when everyone had a 4:3 monitor were better designed than new ones

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Whaaaat? Nyoooo...
        Not at all. Who told you such LYES?! blasfemur
        bruh, html5 breaks my legacy shitter.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is a good example of it not mattering what aspect ratio or resolution the end user utilizes.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    4:3 is better for everything except cinema, phones and kiosks

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kys 4:3 homosexuals

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what have you gained?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He won’t respond, don’t bother

          Not OP but I think he is asking if websites when everyone had a 4:3 monitor were better designed than new ones

          Yep

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP but I think he is asking if websites when everyone had a 4:3 monitor were better designed than new ones

      It was easier only because everyone had one target resolution, you could design in 640x480 with confidence as those with 800x600 would be fine, and only high tech weirdos at the time had 1024x768. Flash was very responsive in this time, and many good times were to be had by all. It was a simpler time. It was a more soulful time.
      T. Boomer flash website designer and animator.

      Kys 4:3 homosexuals

      what have you gained?

      He won’t respond, don’t bother
      [...]
      Yep

      Samegay

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        meds

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Widescreen ruined cinema. Its not even wide, its the same width as 4:3 but with the top and bottom of everything cut off.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No it's not

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You could also say 4:3 is just 16:9 with the sides cut off.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Widescreen of all sorts pre-existed television and most certainly computer monitors.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Forgot my image

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        REEETAAAAAAARD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >4:3 is better for everything except cinema
      IMAX mogs all other formats. 4:3 is the closest we'd be to having IMAX at home.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was easier only because everyone had one target resolution, you could design in 640x480 with confidence as those with 800x600 would be fine, and only high tech weirdos at the time had 1024x768. Flash was very responsive in this time, and many good times were to be had by all. It was a simpler time. It was a more soulful time.
    T. Boomer flash website designer and animator.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought this was the Technolo/g/y board, for Technolo/g/y enthusiasts that knew about Technolo/g/y?
    Am I mistaken?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >windows

      ew

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't you mean: ``Wew''

        Are you going to post that 4k 4:3 OLED or not
        >b-but it's an old lcd I picked up in a garbage can
        I want 4:3 oled.

        Akshually, I paid $25 at a thrift store called Uncle Buck's ~7+ years ago.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >9gay

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry to tell you bubblebutt, I got that image from right here on IQfy.
            https://desuarchive.org/g/search/image/Xg7Z44m7UGQXmYvsO_QX0Q/
            Butt, because I like you, I am going to remove the 9gag watermark I never noticed before. ;^)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          until I can throw HDR emulated phosphor grill over my pixel art what's the point?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are you going to post that 4k 4:3 OLED or not
      >b-but it's an old lcd I picked up in a garbage can
      I want 4:3 oled.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no mathematical difference so I don't know why people even care or why there's even a distinction made.

    4/3 == X
    16/9 == X

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shit bait

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      4/3 =/= 16/9
      maximum moron

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    4/3 was a better ratio for almost everything and especially for browsing the web. Those who don't understand never actually used a 4/3 screen.
    The only things 16/9 is good for are movies and first person shooters. I wish instead the standard stayed 4/3, or at least 3/2.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I prefer square app windows on a wide screen where I can put more next to each other. I only maximize programs that benefit from the wide ratio

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    max-width: 60rem;
    problem solved

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Web design was better before JavaScript.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AR doesn't matter. Height matters for reading. Width matters for reading things side by side. You should always be upgrading to a monitor with more horizontal an/or vertical pixels at the same or slightly higher dpi. The ultimate ideal is a dome or sphere.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The ultimate ideal is a dome or sphere.
      No it' not

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The ultimate ideal is a dome or sphere.
      No that would be super annoying because you'd have to move your head around all the time.
      >Where is my mouse cursor? Oh look it's behind me!

      The ideal is filling your field of view and nothing more.
      16:9 is a good aspect ratio for that, about 2:1 is perfect.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    apple makes their laptop with a 16:10 aspect ratio.
    Microsoft surfaces have goat 3:2 displays.

    the laptops with the best aspect ratios make it a pain to install Linux, and we're left with the consumer 16:9 or the corporate laptops, also 16:9 but with the worst displays for the excel wageslaves.

    the dedicated monitors make you pay a premium for non 16:9 so it's cheaper to buy a 4k display and just not go full screen.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16:9 is optimal because you can always get a larger, higher resolution 16:9 display compared to other aspect ratios.
    There is no reason today to use anything less than a 100ppi 2160p display in 1:1 mode.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >16:9 is optimal because you can always get a larger, higher resolution 16:9 display compared to other aspect ratios.
      I thought that but it's not really true
      because AFAIK most OSes can't properly perform interface scaling, they are still designed to be either 1x or 2x (pixel density). you can get away with arbitrary scaling on windows *to a degree*, but there are many many apps that look horrible or completely inconsistent. (I tried for a few weeks to run windows on a 5k display, at various scaling sizes, and they all looked horrible. 2x looked the least bad, but it was still shitty on many apps - had to manually override them to lock them at low DPI)

      2160p works because it's simply pixel-doubled 1080p - everything stays the same relative sizes, but fonts are more crisp and images have more detail. (assuming cooperative applications, which again, isn't always the case). this is the same thing Apple does with their 5k displays, except they are effectively operating @ pixel-doubled 1440p vs. 1080p.

      as of 2024, most things on windows still look better at 1x with subpixel font rendering for text sharpness
      with macOS you NEED 2x (double pixel density) because it either doesn't support subpixel font rendering, or they use a poor algorithm - no matter what you try, text looks fricking awful at 1x.

      as for linux I would assume it's an even worse situation than the other two.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16:9 is gapeshit.
    4:3 is kinda gape but not gapeshit
    i like other ratio's better
    RATIOD

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does it matter? Its all trash compared to 8:5.
    Get thicc boi

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I miss 4:3
    Even 16:10 and 3:2 aren't as common as they should be

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    √2:1 like standard paper size

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16:10 is a good medium
    wish more laptops would embrace it at least because 16:9 fricking sucks on them

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16:9 because it works better with tree style tabs, which are the superior form of tabs.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16:10 or 1:1 is masterrace tier. 16:9 or 4:3 is Black personish but still exploitable.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    16:10 should had been the new standard, not 16:9

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      And not a single 16:10 monitor today.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >not a single 16:10 monitor today

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.asus.com/us/displays-desktops/monitors/proart/proart-display-pa248crv/

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wish there would be more websites doing 3 columns at 16:9, rather than on 4:3 with whitespace and a narrow center column for the main content.

    Text going from side to side on 16:9 is a different kind of headache, but at last you can resize the window to your liking. I ended creating a 4:3 fancyzones layout for that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like using and moving multiple windows freely, so I wonder if there's a program that shows the ratio of a window when you're resizing instead of using something like fancyzones.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I would settle for the option to resize the window freely while keeping the ratio. Similar to resizing something on photoshop or a similar program.

        There probably is something like that on Linux with that many windows manager, but I have no idea if there's something like that on windows.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you happen to be photo editor, then 4:3 is win for average 3:2 images, as you see tools and properly zoomed image

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and properly zoomed image
      What image editor wouldn't display the image properly because the display aspect ratio doesn't match the aspect ratio of the image?

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We should go back to 4:3.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've been trying to get a 4:3 1600x1200 monitor for months but they're all extremely overpriced or just old as frick and broken. 1920x1080 and higher are nice for most uses but I wish 1600x1200 had caught on more for enterprise users, using it vertically is much better for viewing full page documents.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    9:16 is the best for internet and most productivity.
    16:9 is for entertainment.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    3:2 3840x2560 masterrace

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For web 4:3 was better, it was easier too read, looked like a magazine more or less, 16:9 and even 16:10 is too wide.

    widescreen is good for excel, that's for sure

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >looked like a magazine more or less
      Do you also read a screen top to bottom like the page of a magazine?
      Because that's pretty dumb.

      We have this thing called a scroll wheel so you can use your screen more like a teleprompter than a piece of fricking paper.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't matter anymore. Since phones and tablets webpages are expected to dynamically adapt to device resolution/aspect ratio

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *