Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

[japlytic]

When I was updating Avast for a client of mine who had a notebook computer with a screen resolution of 1366x768, I could not get to the options to renew Avast (because the option buttons go beyond the aforementioned screen resolution) without the need to connect to a minimum Full HD external display.

From what I see, a number of software writers are assuming you have a minimum screen resolution of Full HD (1920x1080).

[Agent24]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

Doesn't surprise me. Try Comodo instead, you don't have to bother with renewal.

[stj]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

use kaspersky - it will find western/israeli malware.
the others all whitelist that shit!

[SMDFlea]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

Press Alt + Space + M then let go ,then use the arrow keys to move the window around .

[Curious.George]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

From what I see, a number of software writers are assuming you have a minimum screen resolution of Full HD (1920x1080).

Well, when should they move beyond 640x480x4b?

You should be able to move the left edge of the window "off screen" and then grab the right window border and stretch the window to reveal whatever is missing.

The real pisser is designing UI's for the wide variety of devices now available, each with different sizes/resolutions and aspect ratios! A new toolkit was recently announced to help automate the layout of "screens" to accommodate these varieties.

[stj]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

what the hell is wrong with "scalling" ??

[BigTroll]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

So sick of Avast products, my boss insists on going with them even after they keep fucking us year after year. Ive had avast brick computers during windows updates. create lots of false positives for some of the proprietary software we use also.

[Agent24]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

use kaspersky - it will find western/israeli malware.
the others all whitelist that shit!

But does it detect Russian malware?

[stj]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

why would russia use malware against non-russians??

[Agent24]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

why would russia use malware against non-russians??

Same reason anyone might, to spy on other countries I suppose. Everyone spies. Everyone lies about it.

Or they might want to target their own people (look at the crazy ideas they have right now about disconnecting their Internet from the rest of the world/ pulling an NSA and routing everything through their own systems).

Are they going to care if non-Russians get monitored as well, by accident? They'd probably consider that a bonus.

[Curious.George]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

what the hell is wrong with "scalling" ??

Scaling is:

• hard
• never optimal (think: different aspect ratios)
• lossy
• inappropriate for different TYPES of devices (e.g., a layout that is appropriate for a desktop screen may be cumbersome for a small phone display -- imagine Windows' Start Menu on a 2.8" smartphone screen)

[stj]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

Same reason anyone might, to spy on other countries I suppose. Everyone spies. Everyone lies about it.

Or they might want to target their own people (look at the crazy ideas they have right now about disconnecting their Internet from the rest of the world/ pulling an NSA and routing everything through their own systems).

Are they going to care if non-Russians get monitored as well, by accident? They'd probably consider that a bonus.

real spying is targetted,
blanket shit is generally done against the indiginous population.
because they fear us.
the u.k. treasonous government filth frear and watch the u.k. people.
the u.s. treasonous government filth frear and watch the u.s. people.
the chinese government frear and watch the chinese people.
the russian government is actually damned popular, but they probably watch people anyway - old habits die hard.

[stj]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

oh yes,
and the u.k. government breaks the law so much they intend to change it!!
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/...overhaul-Javid

hilarious - cant wait to see the details.
probably something like "a leak is not espionage"
and "it's not treason if it's for israel / u.s. / EU governments"
assholes.

[lti]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

Nothing has ever been written for 1366x768. It's a terrible resolution that shouldn't exist. When the standard aspect ratio was 16:10, even cheap laptops and monitors had higher resolutions. When everyone switched to 16:9, they brought 1024x768 back and stretched it. There have been programs that didn't fit on 1366x768 screens since day one. I don't think Avast is the problem. Maybe software and web developers should design everything to run on a display with the same vertical resolution as my 15" CRT monitor from 1996, but that will just let laptop manufacturers continue to suck.

[mariushm]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

I consider safe 1024x600

1024x768 is safe resolution without video card drivers installed
1280x600 is still in some devices

also keep in mind taskbar...

[eccerr0r]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

Come on, design for 640x480, because 320x200 is too crappy

[mariushm]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

I would try to keep the vertical height to 550-650 pixels and
make sure TAB works to go through buttons if outside screen, or there's hotkeys on buttons (ex alt+k for ok, alt+c for cancel) and
be consistent with the button layout/position and text (always same order ok cancel, yes no, not yes cancel etc) so user knows pressing tab n times puts them on cancel for example.

basically minimum resolution you may encounter let's say 1280x720 - title bar height - [1..2]x taskbar height (i have mine locked at 2x normal height because i don't like shrinking taskbar text/buttons/icons and my panel is 1920x1200

horizontal space is fairly not used these days so it could be used...but must be careful about long runs of text... think text columns like in newspapers.

I'm proud to be the person that suggested the current layout of MKVToolnix (the properties column on the right size): https://www.videohelp.com/software/MKVToolNix
Right now the minimum size is 780 x 720 px ... smaller is possible but you get scroll bars.

[eccerr0r]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

Oh gosh pet peeve, the OK/Cancel buttons... ugh!!! Talk about inconsistency. Especially in Linux, seems the default in Gnome 3 is to not have an option to cancel changes - whatever you do takes effect right away.

Plus people are sticking OK/cancel buttons in the title bar if it's not hidden already! Artistic design is more important than consistent UI experience it seems! Is the title bar becoming obsolete too?

And what do you do with portrait displays vs landscape displays... tablet windows pcs have rotation detection like phones... eeek!!!

Sigh.

[Curious.George]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

I'm designing various unsizeable forms and layouts in Delphi to run on Windows. I'm worried that if I assume a minimum 1024x768 screen size (or greater), I'll run into customers still using 800x600. What minimum screen size should I assume? I don't want to require a minimum that irritates users. What's the best practice or current reasonable assumption for screen size?

Does Delphi support any "constraint based" layout paradigms? Or, is it still stuck in the 80's and requiring you to rigidly (inflexibly) position each control/widget where YOU expect it to reside?

The cheap way to support varying "display" geometries is to use a browser-like interface and let the browser dynamically reflow the layout to fit the space available. (it's actually one of the few times I don't find myself cursing browsers!)

Absent that luxury, I've found things like Tk to be accommodating of display real estate variations. (And, ORC shows some promise going forward).

IME, the bigger problem is developers not thinking about the relationships controls should have to each other. Instead, they just slop them on a page (screen) trying to make things "look pretty".

[Ask yourself how you'd organize the controls/information if you had to convey it to a "blind" user. Does your layout satisfy the Principle of Least Surprise?]

My disk sanitizer has to present a metric buttload of information to the user (i.e., details for 60 drives) on a "CRT", generic tablet and/or smartphone. It does this by carefully considering how the information relates to itself so the user knows how/where to find it despite the fact that his UI can change from one minute to the next (based on how he's interacting with the system).

[eccerr0r]

Re: Software writers assuming minimum screen resolution of Full HD?

hmm... stealth "seo" link insertion virus at work here?