Comment on iPadd
dejected_warp_core@startrek.website 11 months 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.
lunatic@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months 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@kbin.social 11 months ago
4:3 monitors were better than 16:9, objective fact, fight me
limelight79@lemm.ee 11 months ago
No argument from me. If nothing else, they were taller, which is better for many documents, web pages, etc.