The first question I would ask of you is how mobile friendly is your site now?

Marshall

Live by the sword and die by the sword is what I reckon. Similarly, start messing with sizes and you will get into trouble.

Honestly, I have never bothered with redisigning for phones and tablets, mainly because I don't use them at all. But when I see our sites on other people's devices... they look perfect.

Why? Because phone and tablet screen resolutions are the same as desktop screens!

they look perfect.

Looks are not necessarily the primary concern. Functionality is.

Marshall

Try browsing your website using a mobile device. Forget numbers for a moment. If you'll have an unpleasant browsing experience why not make your website mobile friendly for your visitors convenience?

Ever see a web page with text runing across a column where it is not supposed to be? That could be a malfunction... if the visitor cannot read the page, it's useless.

As for other malfunctions, if you mean support for JavaScript and CSS anomalies, that comes back to browser support and designing according the KISS principle... always.

Thank you for the responses everyone!

The first question I would ask of you is how mobile friendly is your site now?

We don't support responsive design, nor do we have a mobile version of our content.

Most of our content is articles. Our articles are on the left column, running about 600 pixels. We have a right column which you wouldn't see on a mobile phone unless you side scroll to it.

Most phones nowadays have at least 800 pixels on the long side, so if the phone is held in "landscape" position ( long side parallel to the ground ) a visitor would see your 600px..and some of your right side column.

How much of the right side column would they see ?

What is it's width size in pixels ?

What is the type size in each column ?

What is the type size in your nav' ?

Can your nav' or site be used without side scrolling if the phone is held "landscape" ?

If the site has ads ?..Where are they ? ..how big are they ?..Would any part of them be visible in landscape mode ?

How much of the right side column would they see ?

On client sites, the client wants users to see the main body so not seeing a column of 160-200 pixels without scrolling is not an issue. I find that up to 1000 pixels wide pages work ok for the client.

If you are only interested in ad revenue then you may want to see that right hand column.

Good questions Leosghost. It seems like you have a very good grasp of what to look for in a redesign. I don't want to share the name of my site publicly, but I've private messaged you the domain name. Perhaps seeing it in its entirety will give you a good sense of what is (or isn't) needed. Thanks!

OK..visited..via desktop, tablet and phone..

( specific advice I gave to the OP remains private, public site reviews are in another area of "here" )

But, some general observations that I can repeat here, as, IMO they apply to all sites that are not yet as Marshall said "mobile friendly"..yet..

Desktop ..site works OK..

*Tablet..Still usable, but the default font size could be increased to say 14px..( But to do so might break the current layout , I didn't check ) as at the current sizes both the articles, the nav' and the aff links are hard to read without "zooming" ( and despite it being real easy to do so..80 to 90% of people don't "zoom" on mobile devices, unless they really, really want to see something..image ads are clear though..

*Phone..( 480x800 used landscape ) ..Site is impossible to use without major zooming and scrolling..articles are unreadable, nav does not look like nav ( unless "zoomed" in ) can't read your links on a phone ( unless "zoomed" in )..and the image ads are too small to be "enticing"..

Given that nowadays more people use the web on tablets and phones than on desktops, and that advertisers are spending more on ads targeted at mobile devices than they are spending on ads targeted at desktops..and that your average visitor/clicker via tablets or phones does not "zoom/scroll" unless playing a game..

IMO you should go responsive, but, it really isn't worth it to worry about anyone using screens smaller than 480x800 ..smaller than that means either the user is constrained to a small device by finance ( and you can get 480x800 for $50.oo or under ) ..or they use "web phone" for reading messages and chat and emails only, a "work phone"..neither group are good clickers on ads..nor do they buy much via their phones if you are an aff sending them to say amazon..

How to go responsive ? ..look at frameworks such as bootstrap..or responsive theme CMS systems..wordpress etc all have them..or DIY ( if you can "code" HTML or "script" in any serverside languages )..or hire a dev to transpose your current site to "responsive"..

IMO moving to responsive would raise your current "click through" and thus income by at least 25%..possibly more, site is of a type which is very popular in the USA with those who have time ( to surf ) and a tablet or phone in their hands..and money to spend..

HTH :) .

*tablet and phone screen definitions are not at all the same as desktop screen definition, a common error is to think that using say "view responsive layouts" on webdev toolbar will show you what your site will actually look like on a phone or a tablet..it won't..

To see how a site looks and "works"** on a phone or a tablet..use a phone or a tablet..better yet watch someone else ( an average non tech user ) use a phone or a tablet to visit your site..and just watch them..don't "prompt" or "explain" or "help"..

It will really open your eyes to how average visitors actually interact with websites..

This is not the first time that I've said those last two paragraphs here..

**Works..is a word that means different things depending upon what you are seeking to achieve..can mean "they find their way around easily"..can mean "they read an article", can mean "they click on an ad" ..can mean "they click on a aff link", "works" can mean many things..

Note to mods..I have tried to avoid being too "specific site reviewing" in my reply here, despite having seen the site, the above general observations ( IME ) apply to at least 95% of the sites which I see, so hopefully the post will not be considered to have crossed any "lines" :)