Comment on Funny how we see the world in landscape, but live it mostly in portrait.

• Michal@programming.dev ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Text in a book is horizontal, also an opened book is most often wider than tall - so it’s in landscape too. It’s only in portrait when it’s closed so it’ll take up less space on the shelf - which is also horizontal.

  You can use smartphone in landscape too, but it’s not as convenient to hold, and read text. But for watching video, you bet I’ll rotate it to landscape.

  source

  • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Text in a book is horizontal

    on your phone too, but it is still in a vertical rectangle of view

    also an opened book is most often wider than tall

    but most often you are only observing a single page, don’t you?

    I think OP’s point is not about the shape or layout of things, but the “rectangle of view” or “bounding box” or whatever.

    source

    • epicsninja@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You’re only observing a single page, which is taller than wide, but you’re also only observing a single word, which is generally wider than tall.

      source
• notabot@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s an interesting observation. We observe the world in landscape because our eyes are positioned to give us a goid balance between binocular vision and seeing predators in our peripheral vision, but most of our interactions are portrait, I suspect due to our upright posture. Most of the instances you mentioned are with things that either are, or are evolutiobs if things that were, designed around the fact we are talker than we are wide.

  It would be interesting to observe whether animals with a different posture interact differently.

  source
• lemmyng@lemmy.ca ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Open a picture on your cell phone. Any portrait picture. Now look at it. Do your eyes focus on the whole picture? No, you focus on a portion of it at a time. It doesn’t matter that the orientation is vertical, the frame of your focus is the same no matter what you look at.

  source
• remon@ani.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Most of those are quite specific actions and they don’t really up to “most of our lives”.

  For example I spend at least 8hours watching on wide-screen at work (and a couple more observing landscape screens at home). Reading books, using the fridge, elevators and reading menues or observing statues doesn’t really add up to anything close to that.

  Also some examples are a big confusing. Street signs are usually round, square or … landscape. Generally when in traffic you’ll be observing everything in landscape.

  I think most people (at least me) are mostly living in landscape.

  source

  • foggy@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Really, this argument ignores the greater mystery.

    What the fuck is humans obsession with right angles?

    • They don’t represent our actual visual field
    • They aren’t space efficient.
    • They aren’t strong.

    source

    • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Simplicity, is the short answer. Euclidean shapes are easy to conceptualize and reproduce, and rectangles are among the simplest of them

      source
• ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  a spectacularly healthy dose of cherry-picking with this one.

  what about watching movies at the cinema? playing video games on the tv? train carriages? the back seat of a car? double beds? panoramas? the horizon? a computer’s qwerty keyboard? side-by-side boobs? side-by-side arms? the ending shootout of the good, the bad, the ugly? thw viewscreen of the starship enterprise? car windscreens? baby got back? landscape paintings?

  source