[t-writescode]

They don't even think that.

I have one 1920x1080 monitor and one 1440p monitor. On both monitors, I regularly make it so that each screen is used by 2 applications.

A lot of websites think 960x980 is mobile. *half* of a 1080p screen.

It's bad and a huge assumption on their part that their website should only be seen in full-screen mode, or half of some 4k screen when the most popular resolution is ignored in a productivity usage.

[hinkley]

To expand on this, my work responsibilities often but don't exclusively involve monitoring logs or graphs, and usually I have one monitor dedicated to this. My goal is to encourage myself to look at it every time I remember to do so, and greasing the wheels means tiling windows so I don't have to touch anything. I'm peeking at them like my rear view mirrors.

If I haven't set up a vertical monitor, that's two browsers with half the screen (or 55% with some clever overlapping to clip margins). If I got around to rotating my display, that's could be a portrait window or still only 1100 pixels wide.

[kaishiro]

I'll play devil's advocate here and say it's not objectively "bad". Looking at the analytics of our most trafficked sites the "tween" widths (where 960px falls) are such a small fraction of overall traffic that convincing a client to pay for queries targeting that dead zone would essentially be a non-starter.

Ideally, would every website deliver aggressively optimized experiences across all viewport widths - sure. But at the end of the day someone is paying the bills.

[t-writescode]

And, admittedly, 90% view and everything seems to be how it’s supposed to be afterward.

My bigger problem is designers probably not using the website on normal machines, but instead on their 4K or 5k perfect color machines and assuming it works everywhere.