I used to design with full-width being 1920 (background, hero images, even video if included) - then keep data-like stuff contained around 1280. I generally try

I used to design with full-width being 1920 (background, hero images, even video if included) - then keep data-like stuff contained around 1280. I generally try to make paragraphs smaller - depending on body font size - maybe .contained > p {max width 720px or something - but that is when trying to more keep an overall look like someone had in mind.. I think using the 'ch' for paragraphs may be better for most situations. It would be cool to space paragraphs and similar content into flex-boxes so they could fill up a row if it was wide enough. While I appreciate efficient stuff like that, it seems some clients are hell bent on having this design for them look exactly like the design of place X they are jealous of - so doing things like that doesn't always make the cut. One recent client was viewing on a hi res mac screen - and I had not checked that one of the full-width hero images which was full width on my monitor was not large enough to go full width on hers.. not because the css was not right, but the actual image was not big enough (was 1920 px and not 2550 or whatever) so there's that as well. I thought the general hand wavy thoughts on browser sizing was that the average web browser user was supposed to be expected to ctrl+scroll-wheel to increase their view, and that we were supposed to respect whatever browser defaults they had for text and what not.. but real world is not what web-standards people want it to be often times. I'm not sure more than 10% know to increase zoom with laptop/desktop screens. Also recently found that startpage searching for sites to show pics of what demo site looks like at 1920 wide, 2550 wide, etc.. the top 20 options are not so great right now. would love real world info on how many visitors ctrl+scroll or otherwise View - zoom in or what not. my 2 cents for early 22