TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
"<better-than-1600> x <at-least-1200>" says to me the door's open to widescreen.
I think 1600x1200 is the largest 4:3 currently being produced for the
mass market. There might be some insanely expensive 2048x1536 displays
around for the medical imaging market.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Fred Ridder <docudoc -at- hotmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Robert Lauriston wrote:
> But all of those are widescreen configurations. 1600x1200 would be a 4:3
> format, and as I recall the original post talked about how a widescreen
> format is not appropriate (or maybe just not desirable) for the purpose at
> hand. The point was that it is very hard to find a high-resolution monitor
> in a 4:3 format.
> -Fred Ridder
>> There are numerous 2560x1600 displays out there (over $1000), some
>> 2560x1440 ($850 and up), and lots of 1920x1200 (under $500). Google
>> one of those resolutions and look at the shopping results.
>> > ... what I want is a <better-than-1600> x<at-least-1200> monitor, which
>> > seems basically impossible to find at any price.
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-