My eyes are positioned horizontally in my head, giving a "wide" field of view. So a widescreen monitor always feels more comfortable. Unless anyone has a single, perfectly round eye in the middle of their face, I don't know why you'd want a square monitor. :) That's my opinion, anyway!
Agreed, which is I enjoy my new 3440 x 1440 LG. I don't always use the whole width of the monitor, but I really enjoy spreading windows over more than the usual 2560 width.
Any reference materials can be on the very edges with a very slight turn of the head or a big eye swivel.
Since we're comparing two monitors with the same number of pixels, I'd probably pick 1440p, mainly because it's more ideal for watching fullscreen 16:9 videos, and because I'm more used to scanning left and right than up and down (which is probably an evolutionary result).
I've heard that the "aspect ratio" of humans' field of view is approximately 4:3, so if that's the goal, you'd want...2217x1662. 1:1 is actually closer to 4:3 than 16:9. My guess is that the tendency to scan left and right rather than up and down is the stronger argument for wider aspect ratios than the human field of view argument.
That makes sense only if you're trying to look at your entire monitor at once, rather than just a portion of it at a time and moving your eyes to context switch.
Docker for your eyeballs lets you virtualize most of the marquee or crawl (and a level view from a facing camera) for great ergonomic progress. Marking this as the day 3D sine-scrolling stylesheet aggregation (which you can wipe down or replay every show iteration) took over.
My eyes are positioned horizontally in my head, giving a "wide" field of view. So a widescreen monitor always feels more comfortable. Unless anyone has a single, perfectly round eye in the middle of their face, I don't know why you'd want a square monitor. :) That's my opinion, anyway!