Having worked in the electronics and displays industry for some years I read this display resolution nomenclature article with some interest. Inherently I think the naming convention Coordinated Video Timing (CVT) is a good idea. The traditional and established VGA, SVGA and QVGA are known and understood – well they are if you’ve worked in the electronics/display industry for more than a handful of years.

I do however agree with the author in regard to the classification of the aspect ratio. Megapixels for sure, but what shape (aspect ratio) is the display. It’s fairly important. Why not just include the aspect ratio in the naming convention then it’s very clear: 4:3, 16:9 et al. Whether CVT is accepted by the industry and becomes commonplace remains to be seen. We shall see.