Perhaps the site is only viewed on devices with a large enough screen so that the requirement will be met in all normal cases. Perhaps it is not used by mobile devices? (question did not specify) If it will be used on mobile devices, and scrolling will be forced on actual users, they will likely complain. Then the customer can say: "sit down at a normal computer when you are using this site" which is fair. Not everything must be accessible from a phone. (for small values of screen size)

This isn't even really about responsive design. This is just web design 101. The best way to handle this is to hire a good account executive who can deal with idiot clients like this on your behalf.

@nocomprende not really valid to ask if a site will be used on mobile anymore. A site will always be used on mobile. There's no turning that trend around at this point. A site may not be designed at all for mobile, but there will still be people trying to use it on a mobile device.

@Shadetheartist and yet, sites like that invariably end up viewed on mobile. Simple example is that I have to test a lot of our public sites on mobile. Often to get that, I have to click through a half dozen poorly designed internal saas projects to access internal work. Poorly designed because they never considered people would look on them on a phone.

@DA01 Like the guy who said he was taking a round the world mororcycle trip. I said, "Good luck with the oceans!" Some solutions are just not optimal. Like, really not optimal. So much so, that we need not consider them. Well, I need to control my nuclear powerplant now while walking the dog. Bye!

@nocomprende and your silly example proves what? People shouldn't understand basic web design concepts? (FWIW, the reason mobile is gaining is exactly that...people want to access tools even while walking the dog)

@DA01 I guess they need to take psychological profile tests while walking the dog also? If they do, then maybe they need a psychological profile. I predict that when an AI finally emerges, it will die of laughter.

@nocomprende you resemble your username. :)

@Shadetheartist yeah, I so often wonder why we didn't just create the phone first? Why the long detour through mainframes and terminals? What WAS up with all that vacuum tube and relay technology? Alexander Graham Bell was such an idiot. And Faraday was just neolithic. Sure, do your income tax forms on mobile. What the hell. Of course, if we were really smart, we would eliminate the concepts of income and the economy, but here we are, trying to plot the next big thing.

@Shadetheartist clients do dumb stuff all the time. No argument there. That's more a client management issue than a UX one, though.

@nocomprende I still have no idea what you are going on about.

@DA01 I am saying, computers were invented to get work done. The terminal screen was an achievable technology at the time that fit the human sensory and motor system. The terminal is the size it is because it presents a reasonable amount of info at one time. Smaller screens do not, or screens would have been made smaller in the first place. Mobile only exists because we were able to make things smaller. Cars are not the size of ants now because the body still needs to fit in to it, although it would be great to put the car in your pocket instead of finding a parking place. Reality wins.

@nocomprende uh...the terminal is the size it is due to huge technology limitations at the time. You can only make a CRT so small. Your mobile phone has more resolution than 70's era terminals. But...that's all besides the point. You can't argue against mobile devices. They exist. Everywhere. And more and more people are using more and more mobile devices ot access more and more online tools.

And I'm not saying things aren't often easier to do on a big screen...and that most people would probably prefer to do it on a big screen. But I'm saying that even then, there will always be people that wasn to use it on a small screen. And if you just write them off, then you are writing off customers. Sometimes that can be justified from a business perspective, but usually it can't...at least no UX team should write them off.

"Reality wins" = yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. The reality is that the CEO is often on the golf course and will get frustrated when he tries to bring up the monthly sales report on his iPhone that the business insisted "no sane person would look at on a phone".

@DA01 "The majority is always sane."

@nocomprende ...for some context, I have to ask...are you on a UX team?

You arguments are common...but often are the types of arguments I hear from the software dev team.

@no comprende

not sure how to page you

The majority is always sane is a fun phrase, but again, something UX teams would cringe at.

There's rarely a good argument to target only the majority demographic when, without much effort and proper planning, you can easily accommodate a broader demographic.

@DA01 So UX people are often at odds with programmers? "Why can't we all get along?" When I was a programmer, more than 15 years ago, I was often arguing for things that were "good enough" and would save massive amounts of effort. But they sacrificed details that some people thought were important, so for the most part I did not make any converts. It is just interesting to see it swing the other way.

Sadly--at least in big companies--I often see UX teams and Dev teams at odds with each other.

Mainly due to the corporate org chart and egos at the top.

It's a bad thing.

UX and Dev should be one and the same, IMHO.

But in large corporations, where UX and Dev has been segregated for so long...this is where I see these issues happen the most.

Often Dev is under unrealistic timelines and their success is only measured by meeting business requirements, so I can't blame them for focusing on that.

Meanwhile, UX is being judged by how well the end product is, but that's an entirely different objective than meeting business requirements and timelines.

So that conflict seems ingrained into fortune 500 software development process.

For example, right now I'm a UX (owned by Marketing) on a SCRUM team (mostly owned by IT). We're on the same SCRUM team, but we both have very different marching owners from our respective 'tops of our org charts'. Which is a) annoying b) inefficient and c) pointless. :)

@nocomprende crap. Forgot to page.

"so Buddhism is the cure for that" = ha! Probably true. :)

I teach my students about why database designers have a different perspective from programmers. They need not conflict, but without enough understanding, they do. This is pretty much what you are saying: no one has enough brainpower to have an overall vision. The solution is to simplify things, and sacrifice something. The web went the wrong direction when they tried to control every pixel. It was a fool's crusade.

A market economy is not going to work for very much longer, but that is a different issue. Time for lunch.

Are we the only ones who can see this? Doesn't matter I guess. There is a chatroom born every minute.

We're probably closer in agreement than we realize. I think our disagreement is more semantic.

I'd agree that 'controlling every pixel' is a fool's errand--but that's exactly why I'm arguing that accommodating more devices is the right choice.

We can't even control the NUMBER of pixels a person has. So let's not assume anything and make sure what we build works regardless of the pixels.

As for the Market Economy topic...wow...I bet we're actually very aligned there too...but I agree, very different issue. That one would require some drinks and a happy hour somewhere. :)

THanks for chatting! Enjoy the lunch!

Thank you also.

@DA01 My thought was that because we cannot control the user's device specs, we should just opt out of some situations. The early web design was for HTML to be rendered in whatever way the device was able, with the understanding that some things would not happen. No one tried to convert photos to ASCII Art to render on a terminal. So I say: if the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to force it on, just give up at that point. Failure is an option.

yea, I think we really are close on opinions here. I guess my analogy is, don't buy the wrong sized shoes on purpose. But yea, I do actually agree with the failure is an option. I guess my philosophy is that it's better to make 80% of the people 80% satisfied rather than 50% of the people 100% satisfied, but 50% 0% satisfied. (if that makes any sense...)