Talk:Graphics display resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No 1600 X 900?[edit]

Many wide screen monitors are also 1600x900 please add 1600x900 to this wiki list (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's pretty common now. There's a mention of it on the "Computer display standard" page (as HD+) but it's only referred to here in the High-Definition side table, not in the actual text. It also seems to be commonly referred to as WXGA++ but there's no mention of that term on either page. (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is 1600 X 900 not listed? I'm using it right now. Anyone add, don't know how. -- (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Width x height vs. "height x width"/portrait for smartphones[edit]

Discussion "moved" to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Width_first_or_height_for_screen_sizes.3F_And_inches_again.. for the general principle as a WP:MOS guideline.

List of mobile phones with WVGA display linked from here made me think. Usually the lower number is put first in Wikipedia article on (smart)phones as that is the "width" in portrait. I've been "correcting" when the other way around. Of course the other way is right when when put in landscape (as often done for watching video). Any thought on what is the "right" way (mention in WP:MOS)? comp.arch (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, width and height are interchangeable based on the orientation of the display. My opinion on this has evolved with the rest of the industry over the last several years. I recall that, when I first noticed smartphones were being listed in portrait orientation it felt wrong. This was due to a long established habit, from computer displays, of primarily seeing/using the landscape orientation. But now, it feels wrong when seeing a smartphone mentioned with screen dimensions listed in landscape orientation, unless landscape orientation is specifically being discussed.
IMO, dimensions should be listed with the width (first number) being the horizontal direction in which the specific display is most commonly used, or intended to be used. In general, for smartphones this is in portrait orientation; for computer displays this is in landscape orientation. Using the commonly used orientation is, effectively, an evolution in the industry due to the introduction of smartphones. Prior to their introduction, there really was not that much which was most commonly viewed in portrait orientation. Thus, the prior convention of using landscape orientation. For smartphones portrait orientation is clearly the norm in the industry. Generalizing this to be that we use the most common/intended by manufacturer orientation as the one in which we show the dimensions is reasonable.
If the discussion is about a format in general (e.g. this article), then the dimensions should be listed in landscape orientation (largest number first). Unless it becomes that a specific screen resolution is almost always/only viewed in portrait orientation. Off the top of my head, I am not thinking of any which qualify for listing as portrait orientation in this article.
As to mentioning it in MOS, I have a discussion I need to start there regarding dimension formatting. I will include this issue to see if there is a consensus one way or another. However, I expect that it will be to maintain whatever consensus there is across a general subject category.
Makyen (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WSVGA (typo?)[edit]

(between 15:9 and 16:9) shouldn't this say (between 16:9 and 8:5) ? (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)