Skip to content
1440px

What Width Should You Design At?

One canvas for the file, three widths for the review. The canvas matters less than what you check afterwards.

Short answer
1440 × auto

Wide enough to expose the layout problems a 1280 canvas hides, narrow enough that the result still fits a 1600px browser window. Then check the design at 1280 and at 1920 before you hand it over — those two are where it breaks.

Desktop design canvases compared
CanvasWidthArgument for itArgument against
14401440 pxFits inside almost every laptop browser window, so the design is seen roughly as drawn. Divides cleanly by 12, 8, 6, 4, 3 and 2.Slightly narrower than the most common desktop monitor, so ultra-wide behaviour has to be reasoned about rather than seen.
12801280 pxThe smallest common desktop width. Designing here guarantees it fits everywhere.Too forgiving. Layouts that are cramped at 1280 look fine; layouts that fall apart at 1600 are never discovered.
15121512 pxThe literal default logical width of a 14″ MacBook Pro — what many designers actually see.An Apple-specific number. Divides badly (1512 ÷ 12 = 126, but ÷ 8 = 189, ÷ 16 = 94.5).
19201920 pxMatches the most common physical monitor resolution.Almost nobody browses at 1920 CSS px — the window is smaller, and at 125% Windows scaling the viewport is 1536. Designing here overstates how much room you have.

The MacBook trap

This is the failure that produces "it looked fine in Figma". macOS ships most Macs in a scaled display mode, so the logical width is not the panel width and is rarely a round number. Across the 22 Macs and Apple displays catalogued here, the default logical widths are:

Note what is not in that list: 1440. A designer on a 14″ MacBook Pro is working at 1512, sees their 1440 canvas with 72px to spare, and concludes the design has breathing room. A developer on a 13″ Air is at 1470. A user on an external 27″ display is at 2560. None of them are looking at the same thing, and the browser window is narrower than all of these because of the OS chrome.

The fix is not to change the canvas. It is to stop treating the canvas as the delivery width.

What to actually check

Design at 1440. Then resize the browser and look at three things:

  • 1280 px — does anything wrap that should not? This is the narrowest desktop you owe support to.
  • 1920 px — does the content stretch into an unreadable measure, or does the max-width hold? If your layout has no max-width, this is where you find out.
  • The seam — the width where your last breakpoint fires. Layouts break at the seam, not in the middle of a range.

Why 1440 and not 1512 or 1366

Divisibility, again. 1440 = 2⁵ × 3² × 5, which means it divides evenly by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24 and more. 1512 divides by 12 but not by 16. 1366 divides by 2 and not much else. When your canvas divides cleanly, column widths come out as whole numbers and your spacing scale does not drift.

It is also the reason this site is called what it is called.

Questions

Should I design mobile-first at 390px instead?

Design the hard case first, which is usually mobile — 390px is the sensible phone canvas (55% of phones released since 2020 sit between 390 and 440 CSS px). But "mobile-first" is a CSS authoring order, not a rule about which artboard you open first. Most teams need both files.

What is the most common desktop screen resolution?

1920 × 1080 physically. But the CSS viewport is smaller: a maximised browser on a 1920 screen at 100% scaling reports roughly 1920 × 950, and at the 125% scaling Windows recommends on most 15″ laptops it reports 1536 × 760. See display resolutions.

Does the design canvas affect my breakpoints?

It should not. Breakpoints belong where the content breaks, not where your artboard ends. See breakpoint strategy.

Related

More guides

Written by the 1440px editorial team, last reviewed 7 August 2026. Numbers in the tables are computed from the device and framework data this site maintains, so a correction there propagates here. See methodology.