It costs me a fuckton of extra code, testing, etc, etc... while I gain what? The approval of those few people who insist on a) running websites fullscreen on a huge monitor while b) bitching that it doesn't scale to said monitor?
I believe this is incorrect and will become even more incorrect.
First, in general it's not the huge monitors which have the problem. Most huge monitors have crappy resolution. It's the laptops which have high resolution these days. Macbook 13" and Macbook 15" have resolutions that are higher than 220 ppi (1). There have been Thinkpads with high resolution. iPhones and iPads are headed in that direction. You can disount us el-weirdo T221 users but Macbooks and iPads are mainstream products.
The conventional wisdom is that desktop displays won't go there (2) but I believe that is incorrect. Both Intel and Apple are sifting through history for "new, innovative" crap to patent (3). They both need stuff to sell in the future, so it
going to happen.
So Joe Q Public buys a Macbook Pro to replace his desktop (4). Retina Display [coming soon to a neighborhood near you] (5) gives you zoomy-zoomy display. Now you have a glorious, sharp, distinct, better than real life (thank you, Photoshop) hi-res 15" screen. With the browser blown up fullscreen (it
only a 15" screen, after all), these sites are a 3 1/2" wide (800 pixels times 1"/ 220 pixels) strip down the middle of the display. And nothing you can do about it,
the way the web was originally designed.
Not so wonderful.
Need some screenshits ? I can give you dozens. There seems to be a hidden epidemic of cowboy coding.
Seriously, not worth it
Most of the stuff I make has pictures. Pictures are sized in pixels. Unless you prefer having those pictures dynamically blown up to proportions where you get the eighties block-effect, it just doesn't scale nicely.
Seriously, too goddamned bad. This is the world wide web, not a book. The requirements have been there since the very beginning. That's why html is
just PostScript. There would be no need for html if that were not true.
Web "designers" are just being lazy and sloppy. It's going to bite them in the ass.
Meanwhile, it's biting me in the ass. Grrr.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/appl ... a-display/
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/13 ... p-displays
Come 2013, and PC consumers could finally break the shackles of regressive PC resolution "standards" such as 1366x768 and 1920x1080, if Intel has its way. At a presentation at IDF Beijing, Intel expressed its desire to see much higher resolution displays for all computing devices, not just PCs, which could in true terms be "retina-matched" display resolutions. At an optimal (comfortable) viewing distance, the resolution of a computing device's screen should match that of your eyes.
(lost the link somewhere, too lazy to find it again)
(4) Hot Trend of 2008
(5) Marketing Schtick, 2012-2014
(It doesn't appear to be CSS though. From looking at the source for lots of sites, it seems that web "designers" have set aside everything that was taught about html. Tables and frames and framesets with the width fixed in pixels is pretty common these days. Grrrrr. )