Semi Techie-Dweeb Question....

[Val Adams]

I am working on expanding my web-site. All the books I bought on site design for
the novice recommend providing an alternative to frames for folk whose equipment
wont handle them. But the books were written five or more years ago, and in my
experience nothing moves faster than computer technology (except, possibly, a
middle aged lady or gentleman on the way to the bathroom in the morning....;)
so I was wondering if this is still realistic advice.
IMO this yere ng is about as representative a spectrum of the kind of folk I
would expect/want to be visiting as I reckon I could find for a fair spread of
relevant opinion.
So, anybody definitely got or definitely not got a problem with websites built
with frames?

Val (de Bemused) in SoCal

[david]

On 26 Mar 2004 david read the alt.fiftyplus post of Val Adams, which
stated...

> So, anybody definitely got or definitely not got a problem with
> websites built with frames?
>
> Val (de Bemused) in SoCal
>
>

i agree, val, that technology has changed a lot. the concern for browsers
not being technically compatible with frames dates from 1996-1997 when
Netscape 2.0 was released. i don't think that's an issue anymore. however,
there are several current design issues that challenge frames from a design
and usability perspective (translation: many people don't like frames....)
david (who doesn't like frames as a general design technique because the
URL never changes.... and they tend to load more slowly....)
--
_______________________________________
david dsk...@usa.net

[bforester]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:03:16 GMT, Val Adams <va_a...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

Hi Val, I can't think of a single browser that couldn't handle frames
these days. However when it comes to your web page I would
nevertheless leave in the option to switch them off. I personally
dislike them intensely and always switch to "no frames" if given the
option.

Paul

[Val Adams]

Hmmm...looks like the option needs to stand for aesthetic reasons even if no
longer valid technically. Pity; less overhead building headers only once.
Out of curiosity: I can see why slow loading would be an issue, but why would it
matter that the URL doesnt change? You would still be within the same site,
presumably?
Val in SoCal

[Val Adams]

Ah, well, we must keep even our more cantankerous friends in countenance; see
David's answer as well. I still have curiousity, though; are your reasons for
not liking frames the same as David's, or are there other aspects that bug you?
Only trouble I ever have with them is sometimes the print seems too small. And
I'm not sure that's the frame's fault!

Val in Socal

[david]

On 26 Mar 2004 david read the alt.fiftyplus post of Val Adams, which
stated...

> Hmmm...looks like the option needs to stand for aesthetic reasons even

> if no longer valid technically. Pity; less overhead building headers
> only once. Out of curiosity: I can see why slow loading would be an
> issue, but why would it matter that the URL doesnt change? You would
> still be within the same site, presumably?
> Val in SoCal
>

i'm not against frames... i was just responding to your request for
opinions. if i want to bookmark a particular page on a frame-site, i
cannot. i bookmark the frame and then must search for what i want.... i
just happen to prefer different URLs for each page...
david
--
_______________________________________
david dsk...@usa.net

[Val Adams]

Ah, that makes sense then. And of course sometimes directions from one part to
another are less than clear. I didnt 'get' that you were 'against' frames, only
that you felt they have some less than desirable qualities; as evidently does
Paul. Thank you for taking the time to answer, all these bits of data help to
color the wash!
Val in SoCal

[bforester]

Well, I haven't seen your page, Val, but in most that contain frames
you have to do an awful lot of scrolling in every little window ..
just lazy I guess. :-)

Paul

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:15:08 GMT, Val Adams <va_a...@pacbell.net>

[Val Adams]

Haven't seen my page! Merciful Heaven, the one person on the planet who hasn't
heard about my great-grand-daughter...at great grand length! Here's the URL:

http://home.pacbell.net/ma_adams/index.html

It's a mixed site, part in frames (the part that starts from 'Home-grown'; and
where you will find ggdau, so dont you dare skip them! It'll be ok, there isnt
enough up there to need much scrolling) and part not.
That is what raised the question, you see. I did not work on it while Mark was
ill, naturally, but now all is gas and gaiters again for us I want to go on. I
have hundreds more pictures of the miniatures, plus some notes on their
historical provenance. There is a good deal more genealogy material also. At the
moment that is the part I am working on, bringing up new family pages. I have a
local site that contains most of it, but in my early innocence neglected to
filter out living folk, so have got to go through and correct each page before
uploading for outside publication. As I've all that mucking about to do anyway,
this seemed a good time to think about over-all organization. I know Mark's
pages will eventually split off in to their own site, he has some techie stuff
he wants to publish which I expect would have a very specialized audience, but I
imagine my own part will remain a potpourri of vanity (though will probably
formalize the genealogy bits). So now thanks to you and David I have a better
idea what normal folk might find agreeable as transport through my fantasy
landscape.
Just think, you and David were the only folk who responded, so that makes one
hundred per cent of probable audience preferring the option. Supposing there to
be 100 persons in the group, I have 2% response, 100% in favor. Do you suppose
politicos arrive at their favorable statistics in the same way? <g>
Anyway thank you for letting me know your pet gripe. Even if I dont maintain
total option, (on picture albums, for instance) I think I can avoid lots of
fiddly scrolling.
Best,
val in SoCal