[mk2phil]

I always design my sites around 800px wide, but a client is asking for a scalable solution to match the width of the browser. I can't actually think of any reasons not to do this (in terms that a client will appreciate when you explain why its a bad idea), apart from the fact that they may not have enough content to utilise the space.

Can anyone offer any reasons as to why they shouldn't (or should) be using a scalable solution to help my case.

Thanks in advance

[cam]

Originally Posted by mk2phil

they may not have enough content to utilise the space.

You can also end up having lines with too many words, which makes the content much harder to read, and it can be more difficult to format the page from a design pov.

[Stickman]

Text can run too wide (depends on design).
The design suffers. Nothing lines up because elements move on different size screens.
Or use javascript and copy ux mag - resize this: http://uxmag.com/

[datahound]

I hate resizing pages. Text is too wide to read. Images end up in the middle of nowhere.

One trick I like to do is to have a top and bottom strip of color that makes the page look filled and keep the 800 in the middle. www.kergarec.com for example.

Today it is probably acceptable to build up to 1024 although I would not by choice but it may work as a compromise.

If they need an arguement show them the BBC website, probably (argueably) the best and most used website in the world, they stick to 800 wide because it works best. So do the Times, Telegraph, et al.

My 50p worth..

[mk2phil]

cheers fellas

[pgo]

Life would be so much easier if min-width and max-width were supported by IE. Until then, it's 700-750px wide for me.