Sometime last year, we started designing sites to a 1024 screen resolution. Based on feedback from clients that they wanted more real estate for their content, and usage reports that showed users having a minimum 1024 x 768 screen resolution, we decided to change our default practice. Today, we design to 1024 unless circumstances warrant otherwise.
According to data from the w3schools, 86% of users use computers with screen sizes of 1024 x 768 pixels or higher as of January 2008. All new laptops and monitors ship with at least 1024 resolution, usually higher, so this statistics does not surprise. My new Sony VAIO laptop shipped with 1280 x 800 resolution.
But remember that even though screen resolutions have gone up, printed pages have remained the same. So we design all of our new sites to have a print style sheet where the printable content is no wider than 665 pixels. And if a client wants their site to be PDA-friendly, we add a mobile style sheet where the resolution is typically set to 240 x 320.
There’s lots of discussion around the office about whether or not we should design to a higher resolution. On the one hand, it’s likely that screen resolutions are only going to go up. On the other hand, we notice that users with high resolution monitors tend not to maximize their browsers, but rather have multiple, overlapping windows open at once. So for now, we’ll stick with 1024.
4 replies on “We’re Now Designing to 1024 Resolution”
Another reason for not designing any larger than 1024 is because line lengths will become unreadable. The optimal line length that I have heard is 72-95 characters. I think that 1024 will be the standard for quite some time.
The optimal line length is interesting. For many years, terminal widths have been 80 characters (and I image still are in some cases). I wonder if this has anything to do with optimal line length, due to technological constraints at time of design, or both. Google, here I come.
That is most likely the most effective article that ever cross my reference. I don’t see why anybody should disagree. It could be too simple #for them# to comprehend…anyway good work i’m coming again right here for More Great Stuff!!
What happens when ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude use your organization's research to answer a question but cite someone else instead of you? As AI answer engines become the front door to information, associations need a strategy for AEO (Answer Engine Optimization), GEO (Generative Engine Optimization), and AI visibility to ensure their expertise remains visible, authoritative, and properly attributed. A couple of...
Let me be blunt: if your AI strategy is focused on writing blog posts faster, generating social captions, or drafting catchier emails, you’re thinking too small. Yes, AI can absolutely help with those things. And yes, it can save your team time, but that’s not where the real value is. The real opportunity lies in using AI to rethink how your...
Every January, I like to reflect on the previous year and consider what the coming year might hold for associations, nonprofits, and Matrix Group. This year, I did something different. I invited a few of my amazing team members at Matrix Group to join me on our podcast, Associations Thrive, to talk about the major trends they saw in 2025 and...
Sometime last year, we started designing sites to a 1024 screen resolution. Based on feedback from clients that they wanted more real estate for their content, and usage reports that showed users having a minimum 1024 x 768 screen resolution, we decided to change our default practice. Today, we design to 1024 unless circumstances warrant otherwise.
4 replies on “We’re Now Designing to 1024 Resolution”
Another reason for not designing any larger than 1024 is because line lengths will become unreadable. The optimal line length that I have heard is 72-95 characters. I think that 1024 will be the standard for quite some time.
The optimal line length is interesting. For many years, terminal widths have been 80 characters (and I image still are in some cases). I wonder if this has anything to do with optimal line length, due to technological constraints at time of design, or both. Google, here I come.
That is most likely the most effective article that ever cross my reference. I don’t see why anybody should disagree. It could be too simple #for them# to comprehend…anyway good work i’m coming again right here for More Great Stuff!!
nice header gratcia