Quote:
Originally Posted by Namekuseijin
such features work well enough in html. I'm sorry if your favorite publishers favor pdf...
|
I agree that a reflowable format such as HTML would be superior - or not trying to slavishly imitate the printed page - but we live in a world which is imperfect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Namekuseijin
I'd say at least for comic strips 16:9 is better than 4:3.  |
But not for comic books.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Namekuseijin
Irrelevant when 4:3 got more resolution than the 16:9.
|
Actually that's my entire point. In your first post in this discussion you stated as fact that 16:9 allowed more content to be displayed on screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namekuseijin
What the fuss is about? 16:9 simply allows for more content on screen at once, be it video or text -- not narrow reading, just more text down there. Case closed.
|
That's incorrect for the very reason you stated above. If a 4:3 screen of a given diagonal measurement (which is what's used as the selling point) has a greater resolution (and viewable area) than a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal measurement then the 4:3 screen is going to display more content.
Some content works better on 16:9, other content works better on 4:3, while yet other content reflows and so total screen size (resolution and viewable area) is the only factor that matters.
Which one is better for any given user depends on the content they wish to consume. P prefer 4:3 because it's a better fit for the content I consume on a device. I don't require 4:3, but I do prefer it.
Content is, as always, king.