Volume probably continues to be important with stocks. After all, it's been important since trading began for a variety of psychological reasons and I doubt that will change at any time in the foreseeable future.
And there is some significance to volume "dryups", noted by many technicians going back to Wyckoff, the same significance there is to low volatility and the subsequent (sometimes) breakouts (I say "sometimes" because many stocks never recover and maintain that low volume until the volume and the stocks disappear entirely).
I've learned, however, that the volume in and of itself is largely a decoy. The price action attracts attention and further attracts volume which then feeds on itself in much the same way as swing-point breakouts do. The price action is the key element, not the volume accompanying it. You usually have to drill down to a very small timeframe to see this happening, but it's there. Therefore, the entry is determined by the price action, not by the accompanying volume. If moths are attracted to the flame, the volume will be there, and all the psychodynamics which accompany volume movement will come into play.
This is what makes the "breakout" with accompanying volume of whatever percent over the ADV problematic. If one waits for that volume confirmation, he stands a good chance of being faded. The breakout, in fact, may turn out to have been false (no way of knowing until it retraces and one sees whether it bounces or reverses). Some try to avoid all these twists and turns by letting the BO unfold as it will, then buy the retracement. But if the BO is bogus, those traders will find themselves buying a retracement that turns into a reversal unless they have filters in place that prevent them from doing so. Or, if the BO is legit, there may be no retracement for them to buy, even in small timeframes.
Many potential problems, most of which can be avoided by focusing on price action and the "pattern" it's setting up rather than on the preceding and accompanying volume.
