Take the 2-minute tour ×

I don't really know if I'm asking in the right place, so if my question has to be transferred I apologize for it. I am totally noob in this place.

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by Andrew Barber Jun 26 '13 at 1:11


both my monitors go to 2048 x 1152, even though 1920 x 1080 is pretty much the max for most mainstream monitors. –  Jarrod Roberson May 28 '10 at 20:13
I can't claim to know anything about web design, but is there a good reason for designing for specific sizes rather than using percentages for everything? –  Joel May 28 '10 at 20:22
@Joel: I don't like "liquid designs" for websites which content is mostly text, if you have a wide screen, it gets difficult to read. –  novato May 28 '10 at 20:29
True, that is why you need to do 'liquid', but with restrictions on somethings like text. But some fixed width sites only take up half or less of my wide screen and look quite horrible. –  Echo May 28 '10 at 20:35
@Echo: I know.. that's why I try to fix a minimum and a maximum size before the execution of any web design project. And then try to implement some kind of tricks like headers with background x-repeated on 100% width. –  novato May 28 '10 at 20:50

12 Answers 12

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Whatever I'm working on.

Really I try to fit everything on about 900px. 1024x768 is very much the norm, and the most common resolution today. I wouldn't go past it without a very good reason too.

share|improve this answer
Our containers are usually sized on 900px aproximately.. We've got a client who still uses 800x600 in a 20" screen.. incredible, right? –  novato May 28 '10 at 20:02
@Hermet: Upgrade his OS and teach him about DPI, HE probably runs @ 800x600 because the text is bigger... Just up his DPI to 120 and set his res to 1280x1024, he'll be happy and you'll be happy. –  Aren May 28 '10 at 20:40
@Hermet: 800x600 is ridiculous. Check out xkcd.com/732 –  Josh K May 28 '10 at 20:45

Flexible websites are the future. It has its quirks, but it's not as hard as it may seem.

You have netbooks, iPads, laptops and then 24", 27" and even 30" monitors. And the list is going to grow.

Smart use of min-width/max-width, percentage-based widths and, perhaps, media-quires allow you to achieve extremely amazing results.

Recent A List Apart issue on the subject: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/

share|improve this answer
I agree... but don't you think CSS is not yet adequate for a one-size-fits-all solution? –  harpo May 28 '10 at 23:28
CSS is, some browsers are not :-) but, seriously, I think that to design from 750px up to 1400px, with a smart use of floats and widths, is possible right now. I think that smarter use of a screen real estate is better for user. But, every website is a very different story. The required browser support and, for example, mobile devices support is very different. –  gryzzly May 28 '10 at 23:42

I suggest

750px if targeting 800 x 600 px

950px if targeting 1024 x 768 px

1220px if targeting 1280 x 1024 px

Whatever system you are targeting, make sure you leave at least 50px gap for the scroll bar and sidebar(in some browsers)

share|improve this answer
Why the downvote? –  Starx Aug 31 '12 at 1:19

The best width to a website that works well in all resolutions is 960px wide for what I have found so far.

share|improve this answer

WE target 1024x768. Our biggest problem is customers who use our services might frame us in within thier own websites, targetted for the same resolution and we're still too small.

It is also interesting what versions of browsers to support - 38% of our traffic is still IE6!

share|improve this answer
Oh dear god.. IE6 must be killed –  novato May 28 '10 at 20:00

I work on an internal company web app. Many of our users (for some reason) use 800x600, so we try to support that.

share|improve this answer

The standard "End-User" accepted screen resolution varies from 1280 X 1024 ~ 1400 X 1050

However, if you're talking from a "QA" point of view, the bare minimum requirement usually is 1024 X 768

share|improve this answer

I use 960 grid system in many projects, so i optimize web designs for 1024x768.

share|improve this answer

as i think you should target 1024x768 because this resolution is main in all over world pc. mostly computer user use 1024x768 and you should 1000px as i work always.

share|improve this answer

Minimum ?

I'd say 480px :) like in:

<link media="only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)" href="http://www.alsacreations.com/css/handheld.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" />

We design centered and fixed width pages from 950 to 1004px (960, 970 or 1000px mainly, 1004 is the upper upper limit).

Netbooks have a resolution of 1024x600px mainly so:

  • beware of the fold, screens can have a(n) height that is less than 768px
  • 1024px won't disappear anytime soon

Google released Browser Size, a tool that'll show you width, height of the viewport (not resolution of the screen or size of the browser window) and the percentage of visitors having a bigger viewport, data obtained from "people that visited Google". It works better with icy designs than for jelly and fluid designs

share|improve this answer
Please, don't go confusing people about the whole 'below the fold' nonsense. Read iampaddy.com/lifebelow600 if you need convincing. –  AJMansfield Sep 4 '13 at 20:58
I was writing the exact contrary 3 years ago: don't think you're above the fold because you're targeting "1024" (thinking the height will be 768). You never know. –  FelipeAls Sep 5 '13 at 6:06

Concur with the posters above, generally the norm today is 1024x768 (and use a base 960 grid)

But you should always pay attention to your server logs/webstats first. They will tell you the most used screen resolutions of your visitors, and browser info. There likely are some surprises, and you will get better data about your users from your logs than asking us.

share|improve this answer

As with most of the above, we tend to design to 1024x768, with nothing wider than 980px.

share|improve this answer
