If you had to design for 1280 without using fluid or responsive design (project constraints), what width would you set the design to be? For example, a set width of 1140 should allow enough gutter space to accomodate various browser sizes. Would designing to 1280 be acceptable considering the new minimum resolution is 1280?

More context:

  • Audience skews older (travel industry)
  • Tends to research multiple sites at one time which leads me to believe multiple windows/tabs
  • Don't have access to screen resolution for our audience (yet)

What is the accepted practice?

  • 1
    Can you be clear about what you are asking? Do you want to know the ideal resolution in the 1280x800 range? – rk. May 21 '13 at 21:23
  • 1
    "new minimum resolution is 1280" = what do you mean by that? As for your context of being an older audience and trends towards viewing multiple sites, I'd say 1280 is a rather odd extreme to choose. – DA01 May 21 '13 at 21:52
  • I mean that usage statistics indicate that a minimum resolution width of 1280 means it is the new standard as opposed to 1024. – erik_lev May 22 '13 at 0:17
  • When I read the title I thought it was about designing something for the year 1280... – PhonicUK May 22 '13 at 13:58
  • Haha, for the year 1280! – erik_lev May 22 '13 at 21:22

1280 is quite popular as a resolution today but that doesn't mean you get such a large viewport. It's going to depend on your market.

If you have an existing site, I would run some analytics on your most common viewport sizes before going with such a wide site. There are tools out there to give you a heat map on viewed area. That can really go a long way toward understanding what your customers are seeing. You could also just run a script to record the port size on page load.

If you don't have a site to measure from, go take a look at your competition. If you have some reasonably successful ones, there's a good chance they didn't dive into their current template without consideration for width.

All that said, I wouldn't go above 1080 without some really good data to support it.

| improve this answer | |

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.