Why has whitespace use become so excessive in 'modern' web design? The inefficiency is truly incredible anymore.
>>53619602
muh harmony!
muh feng shui!
>>53619602
Fucking normies
>>53619602
The prevalence of touch screens
>>53619602
Mobile.
>>53619696
>>53619761
Out of curiosity is there any reason with responsive design it couldn't account for higher resolution displays and increase information density in those cases?
>>53619821
No, but that costs more money
>>53619821
Sure, but then you have less design parity and that'll cost you more. Also, people like the idea that their website looks similar on all platforms
muh parity
>>53619602
https://www.opensuse.org/
https://www.netflix.com/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://everyfuckingwebsite.com/
what happened to practical web design?
http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
>>53619602
>left
>small pics can't see shit nigga
>right
>beautiful high-res pics so I can clearly see what I can't afford
>>53620015
you must have brain damage. they would all fit your screen
>>53620015
pretty much this but most people on /g/ for some reason think they know graphic design because they opened photoshop (or GIMP kek) once.
>>53619602
Because of the mobile revolution shit and the requirement to build "responsive" sites, instead of separate mobile sites, like they used to.
And basically everyone using either Bootstrap or some derivation of it as a grid system. Also it's the Web 3.0 site layout, with one big midsection and empty space on the sides. Supposedly, it makes sites adapt better to more resolutions and it makes developing responsive sites easier to maintain.
That doesn't mean everyone is doing it. Some sites use a full width format, some use a fullscreen slider format, some a boxed format, etc.
I, for one, know that at first I hated "scroll sites", but I guess I got used to them in time. Now they bother me less, but I still think they're not the best idea. Some people researched this and apparently most people prefer scrolling to clicking buttons to see more content in different site sections.
So, I guess what I think is best is not shared by most people.
>>53620085
They would if I had 800x600 resolution, but for 2K and 4K you gotta have those big and beautiful pics man.
>>53619602
https://web.archive.org/web/20040824085507/http://amazon.com
Truly 2004 was a Golden Age of website design. Everywhere you looked, there were wonders of true freedom abound. Oh how I miss those unique geocities and livejournal pages.
Tears in rain.
>>53620267
That looks awful and it's not just looks. The font size is too small which makes it difficult to read, unless you're very close to the screen.
On top of this the page sprawls all around the screen from left to right, stretching around the entire page content.
The content is very fragmented and small, small fonts, small images, buttons, etc. Sure, you can see more content in one screen, but at what cost? You can't sit back and read, you have to come close to the screen or squint.
