For a couple of years the smallest design I make for responsive websites is 375px wide. Now our new frontend developer eats my brain that I should provide 320px wide. And even if I will not she will scale to this minimum anyway. Smallest breakpoint is 480px. But the message is - good old 320px must be covered and scaling 375->320 is annoying (can't argue with latest thou).

I tried to ask Google, and got an article "Why your mobile site should still stay 320px wide" dated 2012... Should we, still, in 2019?

Need reasoned opinions.

Current project TA in short - a payable developer (more rarely - a scientist) located in a Western country. It's an API service, what increases probability of browsing from desktop - you won't manage and download api keys or copy paste code from documentation on a phone.

  • 1
    It sounds like users aren't there for the content, and the main reason to use a 320px breakpoint is to facilitate serving good content. Can you design this to be without breakpoints at all? See medium.com/simple-human/… – Stacy H Sep 16 '19 at 22:54
  • Do you collect any kind of analytics of your users? In my work the debate over browsers to design for is similar to yours about minimum screen width. I checked the Google Analytics to find that 20-30% of my users were still using old versions of IE, so we still have to account for them. If you do not have hard data, it may be better to design for the worst case 320. sorry! – ph33nyx Sep 17 '19 at 14:35

I believe 320 points wide is not an unreasonable width in 2019 because:

  • Desktop users can still resize their browser windows to small widths.
  • iPad apps in split view (including Safari) can be 320 points wide.
  • iPhone SE (which was sold new within the last year) has a 320 points wide screen.
  • I'd say the desktop case is very niche given the prominence of wide screens, the rest is spot on. – Luciano Dec 3 '19 at 10:54
  • @Luciano Maybe a bit niche. As a developer (that only uses one screen most of the time), I do shrink browser windows to minimum width (320) and put them next the the code editor. Developers using desktops with one monitor may be rare, but there are more places a laptop may not have access to a second display. – Barnyard Dec 3 '19 at 14:54

I can only speak from personal project experience for a multi million pound website re design.

We're designing with 320 mobile in mind as a worse case scenario for mobile screen sizes. It may be a bit small for 2019 but it's a resolution that will catch all and work.


It all depend on our target user as we are designing our app for small town and as we research, we find that our target audience are using 320 devices so that we have to design for them because we don't want to restrict our product for large devices.


I agree with Baldev Singh. It all depends on your target users, personas, or whatever term you use. Every time I do a website redesign for my clients, I always ask them to provide me their Google Analytics statistics (or something similars). So I know where most of the user come from and which device they use to access the website.

As we live in agile era, if you think 320px is not necessary, you can always implement it when there's enough data that it is indeed needed.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.