Good sites with frames?
Lars Eijssen
Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
>
> Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
> with frames?
my favourite:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/4439/indexf.htm
--
___________________________________________________________
| |
| How To Find LoveHTML? |
| |
| http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/4439/indexf.htm |
|___________________________________________________________|
Lars Eijssen, Amsterdam
Jan van der Steen
taa...@pobox.com (Torbjoern Aarnes) writes:
> Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
> with frames?
> I know a lot of people don't like frames, but surely there must
> be _someone_ who has got it right. :-)
I use frames for an online biography browser with hunderds of entries.
One frame has the initials, second frame a list of persons who's name
start with the selected initial and the third frame shows the biography.
URL:http://www.cwi.nl/~jansteen/go/games/games-3.html
Jan van der Steen
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jan van der Steen jans...@cwi.nl
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)
The World Wide Web "http://www.cwi.nl/~jansteen/"
Will Sutton
Yes.....my site....( hey, only joking ). As people
get used to frames and more experienced I am sure
a lot of people will get it right.
Will Sutton
http://www.users.bigpond.com/will_sutton/
Torbjoern Aarnes wrote in message <34987b24...@news.sol.no>...
A.R.M. van Ketel
Jan van der Steen wrote:
>
> taa...@pobox.com (Torbjoern Aarnes) writes:
>
> > Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
> > with frames?
>
> > I know a lot of people don't like frames, but surely there must
> > be _someone_ who has got it right. :-)
>
> One frame has the initials, second frame a list of persons who's name
> start with the selected initial and the third frame shows the
> biography.
>
> URL:http://www.cwi.nl/~jansteen/go/games/games-3.html
>
> Jan van der Steen
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Jan van der Steen jans...@cwi.nl
> Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)
> The World Wide Web "http://www.cwi.nl/~jansteen/"
I use frames for most of my sites, check out these two sites for special
use of frames:
1. DOE MAAR - The unofficial Home Page
http://www.won.nl/dsp/usr/svketel/Music/Doemaar
2. My personal homepage - hi-tech version
http://www.won.nl/dsp/usr/svketel/ --> choose hi-tech
P.S. Are there only Dutch people who use frames? ;)
Sander
--
A.R.M. van Ketel -- svk...@won.nl
==================================
http://www.won.nl/dsp/usr/svketel/
HotSource
Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
> Subject: Good sites with frames?
That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together. In rare
cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
rare... VERY rare.
--
=| Due To A Flood Of SPAM, You Must Remove The 'XX' From My Address |=
~Shawn Brady
-- For more FREE info on HTML and JavaScript, head to:
-- http://interweb.simplenet.com/Hotsource/ (lessons being added)
- alt.html
- comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
"Resistance is not futile"
Mark Twain said and I quote...
"Never trust a person who can only spell a word one way"
Timothy McClanahan
In article <348EE98B...@ibm.net>, hots...@ibm.net wrote:
>Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
>> Subject: Good sites with frames?
>That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together. In rare
>cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
>rare... VERY rare.
http://www.newshub.com (then select frames) - this site uses frames
and javascript quite effectively. 'Good' and 'Frames' don't go together not
because of their nature, but because most web pages suck pretty badly. Better
technology (e.g. frames) simply allows people to make pages that suck MORE.
It also allows people who know what they're doing to make great websites.
Unfortunately, the latter such people are few and far between.
The point: Frames don't suck - people do!
HotSource
Jon Sternoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, HotSource wrote:
>
> > Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: Good sites with frames?
> >
> > That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together. In rare
> > cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
> > rare... VERY rare.
> >
> well...
If you say you have seen 'some cases', then what do you disagree with?
I believe I made that clear in my first message.
> many quoted just above this post...I especially like the sites
> (like mine) that use a frame exiter (i.e. TARGET=_top) when linking to
> another site (so people do not have to view that site in their
> frames)...
This is one of many things that make up an acceptable frames page, but
it is only one.
> On my site I honestly believe frames are
> necessary...
Not necessary, but maybe a shortcut.
> unless someone wants to share with me an easier way to
> navigate 200 pages with out having to back track every time you want to
> go to a differt page...
As I that you didn't supply a URL, I can't comment.
> I've tried java, but with this many pages it
> runs really slow or not at all...I do offer a non-framed option, but the
> framed version beats it in popularity almost 2 to 1...
I would think most people don't bother to 'break out', if that is how
your page is set up, load the frames and then ask if they want them.
> I admit, using frames for a small site can seem a bit of overkill in that
> is slows the page down, but look at the posts above...they appear to load
> fast and look nice...
'Nice' is a relative term.
> I am a person who wants to keep all options on the same
> page...backtracking in annoying...proper use of frames (with frame
> exiters) is the best way to go for large sites in my book...
If you say so.
Jhary-a-Conel
HotSource wrote:
> Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
>
> > Subject: Good sites with frames?
>
> That is an oxymoron.
No it isn't.
> 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together.
Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
produced by good authors. As you've stated.
--
Jhary-a-Conel
Visit Tanelorn @ http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/enter.html
ICQ me @ 1400818
'All places are a myth somewhere else - but Tanelorn is more
constant than most. She can be found, if sought, from anywhere
in the multiverse.'
HotSource
Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
>
> HotSource wrote:
>
> > Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: Good sites with frames?
> >
> > That is an oxymoron.
>
> No it isn't.
Why? Elaborate?
> > 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together.
>
> Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
> produced by good authors. As you've stated.
Which is most designers using frames, as I stated. I have yet to see a
site that NEEDED frames, it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
Jhary-a-Conel
HotSource wrote:
> > > > Subject: Good sites with frames?
> > >
> > > That is an oxymoron.
> >
> > No it isn't.
> > > 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together.
> >
> > Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
> > produced by good authors. As you've stated.
> it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
> doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
> reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
As well as being a poor arguement against frames. It significantly increases
your workload to use frames (if you are a considerate author. With Homesite
2.5, in a about 10 clicks, I could have a navbar in 100 documents.
Your comment about lazy authors, is still valid, just in the reverse of your
comments. I suggest, that you don't like frames, because you haven't figured
them out or are unable to concieve of an interesting design or (and this is
the likely reason) you simply hate frames for some unfathomable reason.
****Please take these comments lightly, I've made them in the kindest
regard*****
I use frames supplementarily.
My index site, is framed. I provide a noframes version.
http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/index.html
Obviously, this is not supplementary.
I have a site called Tanelorn: The City Of Peace - dedicated to the works of
Michael Moorcock.
http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/tanelorn.html
Most of the pages that jump from this page (including the parent page) are
unframed.
But within the site, there are two portions of the site that provide content
via frames (which are no framed).
http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/frameset.html
and
http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/multicomic/multi.html
oh yeah, I almost forgot this one -
http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/concordance/conframes.html
In stark contrast to
http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/multicomic/multi.html
I have made a gallery that functions in the best non-framed fashion
http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/baron.html
I want to point out: these framed pages have <noframes> and are not the main
attraction to the site.
Also, I haven't had the time to run everything through A Kinder Gentler, HTML
Validator - so you WILL find errors.
"NEED" frames? Nope, not really. Tired of frames? Go watch TV. Oooops,
has anyone noticed the interesting screen layout on a couple of the news
channels lately? More and more are looking like web pages. Framed web
pages. Hehehe.
Can't beat us, so join us. I'll refer you to many of the pleasant response
in this thread.
Thank you, drive through.
nospam
Frames really help web-based conferencing systems. www.prforum.com is
a good example that uses the Discus scripts.
Will Sutton
>The point: Frames don't suck - people do!
The thing is that everyone has different tastes.
It would be a pretty boring world if this was
not true.
Eric Bohlman
: > Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
: > with frames?
: > I know a lot of people don't like frames, but surely there must
: > be _someone_ who has got it right. :-)
: I use frames for an online biography browser with hunderds of entries.
: One frame has the initials, second frame a list of persons who's name
: start with the selected initial and the third frame shows the biography.
Unless the biographies are extremely short (at most two paragraphs),
you're trading a reduction in navigational clicking for increase in
scrolling. If the biographies are of non-trivial length, I'd rather have
more of my browser window devoted to the text so I don't have to scroll as
many times than have my reading space reduced merely so I don't have to
click the dreaded back button.
Tomislav Petrovic
Torbjoern Aarnes (taa...@pobox.com) wrote:
: Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
: with frames?
I'm not sure whether it is a good example but I tried to do my best.
User can choose whether he/she wants frames or not on every page,
so it is up to him/her to decide.
I personally like frames but try to please both sides since I want
my site to be viewed by both sides.
Tomy.
--
**************************************************************************
* This message originates from: * E-mail addresses: *
* Tomislav Petrovic * t.pet...@computer.org *
* Faculty of Electrical Engineering and * tpe...@zesoi.fer.hr *
* Computing, Zagreb, Croatia. * Tomislav...@fer.hr *
**************************************************************************
Dan Mcgarry
In article <348F6871...@ibm.net>, HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> writes:
|> Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
[frames don't work]
|> > Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
|> > produced by good authors. As you've stated.
|>
|> Which is most designers using frames, as I stated. I have yet to see a
|> site that NEEDED frames, it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
|> doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
|> reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
Actually, the best critiques of frames that I've come across mostly
objected to the useability aspects, that is, to Netscape's implementation
and support of them.
Jakob Nielsen has a good report on "Why Frames Suck (Most of the Time)"
on his site <URL:http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html>.
You can lay many of the problems with frames squarely at the door of the
company that was in too much of a hurry getting it done to do it right.
In and of themselves, frames are not entirely a bad idea....
--
Dan McGarry
HotSource
Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
>
> HotSource wrote:
>
> > it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
> > doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
> > reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
>
> your workload to use frames (if you are a considerate author.
I hardly think so. Once you get your 'framsets' done, you merely have
to make the corresponding pages.
> With Homesite
> 2.5, in a about 10 clicks, I could have a navbar in 100 documents.
Using a WYSIWYG editor to 'find and replace' is an expectable way to
change many pages. Too bad not many people take advantage of this,
instead they use frames. pity.
> Your comment about lazy authors, is still valid, just in the reverse of your
> comments. I suggest, that you don't like frames, because you haven't figured
> them out or are unable to concieve of an interesting design
I have designed framed pages for clients, and in these situations frames
added to the experience of the page. What the difference is, is I
applied them correctly (IMHO). It best fit my clients needs.
If you wish to have a look see, here are the links.
I no longer maintain this page, hope it still works:
http://www.fka.org/raven/
This one is still being developed:
http://interweb.simplenet.com/Goldstein/default.html
> or (and this is
> the likely reason) you simply hate frames for some unfathomable reason.
> ****Please take these comments lightly, I've made them in the kindest
> regard*****
I don't hate frames, what I don't like is how many people use them.
Frames should not come into the equation unless there aren't ANY other
ways to achieve the desired affect.
> I use frames supplementarily.
>
> My index site, is framed. I provide a noframes version.
> http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/index.html
Scroll bar on top frame not needed.
> Obviously, this is not supplementary.
>
> I have a site called Tanelorn: The City Of Peace - dedicated to the works of
> Michael Moorcock.
> http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/tanelorn.html
>
> Most of the pages that jump from this page (including the parent page) are
> unframed.
> But within the site, there are two portions of the site that provide content
> via frames (which are no framed).
> http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/frameset.html
> and
> http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/multicomic/multi.html
> oh yeah, I almost forgot this one -
> http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/concordance/conframes.html
Scroll bar on top frame not needed.
>
> In stark contrast to
> http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/multicomic/multi.html
> I have made a gallery that functions in the best non-framed fashion
> http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/baron.html
Now what is bad about this page? You could add left hand navigation
without any problems.
> I want to point out: these framed pages have <noframes> and are not the main
> attraction to the site.
> Also, I haven't had the time to run everything through A Kinder Gentler, HTML
> Validator - so you WILL find errors.
>
> "NEED" frames? Nope, not really. Tired of frames? Go watch TV. Oooops,
> has anyone noticed the interesting screen layout on a couple of the news
> channels lately? More and more are looking like web pages. Framed web
> pages. Hehehe.
I also don't see scroll bars and half pictures because someone didn't
line it up right.
> Can't beat us, so join us. I'll refer you to many of the pleasant response
> in this thread.
I never wanted to beat you. I did want to make it clear the obvious
downsides, and the many cases they are unnecessary. You can choose you
look at what I have stated objectively, or run around screaming bloody
murder.
--
=|Due To A Flood Of SPAM, You Must Remove The 'XX' From My Address To
Reply|=
~Shawn Scott Brady
-- For more FREE info on HTML and JavaScript, head to:
-- http://interweb.simplenet.com/Hotsource/index.shtml (lessons being
HotSource
Dan Mcgarry wrote:
>
> In article <348F6871...@ibm.net>, HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> writes:
> |> Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
>
> [frames don't work]
I didn't say that. I did say most people don't know how to use them.
>
> |> > Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
> |> > produced by good authors. As you've stated.
> |>
> |> Which is most designers using frames, as I stated. I have yet to see a
> |> site that NEEDED frames, it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
> |> doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
> |> reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
>
> Actually, the best critiques of frames that I've come across mostly
> objected to the useability aspects, that is, to Netscape's implementation
> and support of them.
Yes, there are problems with accessibility, but there are also problems
with plain BAD design. And In most cases frames aren't needed.
> Jakob Nielsen has a good report on "Why Frames Suck (Most of the Time)"
> on his site <URL:http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html>.
Good page... many good arguments.
> In and of themselves, frames are not entirely a bad idea....
No they aren't, it's the use and misuse that makes them bad.
Warren Steel
HotSource wrote:
> > Actually, the best critiques of frames that I've come across mostly
> > objected to the useability aspects, that is, to Netscape's implementation
> > and support of them.
> Yes, there are problems with accessibility, but there are also problems
> with plain BAD design. And In most cases frames aren't needed.
Exactly. How can you separate an imaginary "frameset ideal"
from Netscape's flawed implementation? They're one and the
same. Had Netscape wanted to provide a flexible interface
for multiple related documents, they could have implemented
LINK from HTML 2.0, or BANNER from HTML 3.0. They *didn't*
want a flexible interface, they wanted a pushy procrustean
interface, and so they hacked one together; ergo, FRAMESET.
Frames offer some apparent advantages to authors, but these
advantages are 1) mostly illusory, and 2) far outweighted by
the palpable disadvantages often cited: problems in addressing
framesets via unique URLs, problems in printing, problems
in bookmarking, problems on non-visual systems, problems
in preempting screen space, problems arising from the fact
that there's really no inherent semantic relationship between
frames in a frameset, only someone's decision that they "look
good" together on a particular system or display.
> > In and of themselves, frames are not entirely a bad idea....
> No they aren't, it's the use and misuse that makes them bad.
I disagree. It's the nature of NS framesets that is
entirely counter to Web notions of portable relationships
and unique addressability. It's the nature of NS framesets
to be fatally flawed. If you rescued them from these flaws,
they no longer be NS framesets.
"...And had it not three corners,
It would not be my hat!"
--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
URL: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
Jhary-a-Conel
> > > it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
> > > doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
> > > reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
> >
> > your workload to use frames (if you are a considerate author.
>
> I hardly think so. Once you get your 'framsets' done, you merely have
> to make the corresponding pages.
I simply disagree. The complexity of providing a <noframe> version of the site, is
like making the site twice. But I would like to qualify this by pointing you to
the afore mentioned Multiverse Comic site I made.
> > I use frames supplementarily.
> >
> > My index site, is framed. I provide a noframes version.
> > http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/index.html
>
> Scroll bar on top frame not needed.
That depends on your monitor's set resolution. That is a large image in that small
area.
> > http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/frameset.html
> > and
> > http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/multicomic/multi.html
> > oh yeah, I almost forgot this one -
> > http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/concordance/conframes.html
>
> Scroll bar on top frame not needed.
That depends upon your resolution.
> > In stark contrast to
> > http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/multicomic/multi.html
> > I have made a gallery that functions in the best non-framed fashion
> > http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/baron.html
>
> Now what is bad about this page? You could add left hand navigation
> without any problems.
Oh, nothing at all, thank you. I am waiting for some artwork to roll in, and I'll
have an alternate navigational method. A text method would be distracting...
> I also don't see scroll bars and half pictures because someone didn't
> line it up right.
Good point.
> > Can't beat us, so join us. I'll refer you to many of the pleasant response
> > in this thread.
>
> I never wanted to beat you. I did want to make it clear the obvious
> downsides, and the many cases they are unnecessary.
Oh no, I didn't think you wanted to beat me.Actually, this is the most pleasant,
and productive conversation I've participated in regarding frames. Thank you.
--
Jhary-a-Conel
Visit Tanelorn @ http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/enter.html
ICQ me @ 1400818
'All places are a myth somewhere else - but Tanelorn is more
constant than most. She can be found, if sought, from anywhere
in the multiverse.'
Jhary-a-Conel
HotSource wrote:
> Dan Mcgarry wrote:
> >
> > In article <348F6871...@ibm.net>, HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> writes:
> > |> Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
> >
> > [frames don't work]
>
> I didn't say that. I did say most people don't know how to use them.
Here is what HotSource said:
That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together.
To which I replied:
> > |> > Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
> > |> > produced by good authors. As you've stated.
Dan McGarry summarized out of context:
[frames don't work]
And continued to quote us.
Robert G. Eldridge
>I know a lot of people don't like frames, but surely there must
>be _someone_ who has got it right. :-)
Take a look for yourself at:
http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/trivia/quiz.html
Plus points;
1. Only 4.25kb total initial load incl. the graphic.
2. Each new page is under 2kb and 1kb respectively.
3. Two pages are "recycled" from the users cache.
4. Relatively free of resolution constraints.
Minus points;
It's more difficult to see the answers (ie cheat).
Let us know what you think.
Robert G. Eldridge Cardiff NSW Australia
robert....@hunterlink.net.au
http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/
Liz Knuth
In article <34987b24...@news.sol.no>, Torbjoern Aarnes was
overheard saying:
> Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
> with frames?
The only good example I have seen is an online Torah study, at
http://www.jcn18.com/scripts/jcn18/paper/Index.asp?ColumnID=48
(You must choose one of the archived sections, or this week's
discussion, to see the frames in use.)
Liz
--
Elizabeth T. Knuth "A cockroach in a tuxedo
ekn...@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu is still a cockroach."
http://www.csbsju.edu/library/training/incen.html -Richard K. Bethell,
Internet-Centric Resources nanae, 6 Nov 97
Liz Knuth
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.97121...@homer28.u.washington.edu>,
Jon Sternoff was overheard saying:
> On my site I honestly believe frames are necessary...unless someone
> wants to share with me an easier way to navigate 200 pages with out
> having to back track every time you want to go to a differt page...
> I've tried java, but with this many pages it runs really slow or not
> at all...
Organization, categorization, and decent navigational aids. Perhaps
a site map as well. Our libraries have 255 or more pages, and we
see no need for frames.
http://www.csbsju.edu/library/index.html
Liz Knuth
In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman was
overheard saying:
> Jan van der Steen <jans...@cwi.nl> wrote:
> : I use frames for an online biography browser with hunderds of
> : entries. One frame has the initials, second frame a list of
> : persons who's name start with the selected initial and the third
> : frame shows the biography.
> Unless the biographies are extremely short (at most two paragraphs),
> you're trading a reduction in navigational clicking for increase in
> scrolling.
And unless the last link to the actual biography takes the reader
out of a frame, you have made it difficult for visitors to bookmark
or print out what interests them.
Donald Koeleman
Dear Shawn,
HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
>>
>> HotSource wrote:
>>
>> > Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
>> >
>> > > Subject: Good sites with frames?
>> >
>> > That is an oxymoron.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>Why? Elaborate?
>> > 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together.
>>
>> Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
>> produced by good authors. As you've stated.
>Which is most designers using frames, as I stated. I have yet to see a
>site that NEEDED frames, it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
>doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
>reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
How do you suggest i do the following without frames?
http://huizen.dds.nl/~cooleman/newspage.htm
Can hardly ask these site owners to put MY navbar on their page, can
i.
A simple link list, defeats the purpose of this page.
(excuse and filling to get the server to accept this message;-))
Mind, still under constant improvement. So don't complain about
invalidity yet. Checked with webtech and it seems there are a lot of
unexpected errors. Haven't understood all of their, somewhat cryptic,
result statements yet. And a couple of links need an update;-)
Viktor Fougstedt
cool...@dds.nl (Donald Koeleman) writes:
>How do you suggest i do the following without frames?
>http://huizen.dds.nl/~cooleman/newspage.htm
>Can hardly ask these site owners to put MY navbar on their page, can
>i.
>A simple link list, defeats the purpose of this page.
What is the purpose that a link list defeats? Perhaps I'm missing
something, but to me it seems that a link list would do just as fine,
every browser I've seen having a "Back"-button. Why should your navbar
be available when I view the contents of another site?
/Viktor...
--
--| Viktor Fougstedt, Orkesterg. 21, 421 39 V. Frolunda, Sweden |--
--| http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d2viktor/ |--
--| ...soon we'll be sliding down the razor blade of life. /Tom Lehrer |--
Dan McGarry
In article <34907D...@olemiss.edu>, Warren Steel <mu...@olemiss.edu> writes:
[I wrote:]
|> > > In and of themselves, frames are not entirely a bad idea....
[Warren wrote:]
|> I disagree. It's the nature of NS framesets that is
|> entirely counter to Web notions of portable relationships
|> and unique addressability. It's the nature of NS framesets
|> to be fatally flawed. If you rescued them from these flaws,
|> they no longer be NS framesets.
Point well taken. Allow me to re-phrase, then:
In and of itself, the concept of multi-document display
and navigation is not entirely a bad idea....
An example of how this can be achieved very simply (or
crudely, if you prefer) was provided by Arjun Ray in another
thread. If we use a browser which supports MDI (such as
Opera 3.0), then we can use the TARGET attribute to load
links into another window without losing the ability to
access either resource directly.
MS has made an interesting step in this direction in IE 4.0,
by creating a fly-out section displaying, among other things,
a search results page, which automatically loads target
documents into the "main" window. As usual, however, this
is a purely MS construction, and doesn't lend itself to any
kind of implementation in HTML.
I'll admit that I was stating the point simplistically,
perhaps for the wrong reasons.
Thanks for pointing this up.
|> "...And had it not three corners,
|> It would not be my hat!"
This quote seems familiar, but for the life of me,
I can't remember the source. Where's it from?
--
Dan McGarry
R.Parr
Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
> Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
> with frames?
>
> I know a lot of people don't like frames, but surely there must
> be _someone_ who has got it right. :-)
I like to use frames for development documentation sites because I often
want to keep the original list available and open each document in
another page. I'd be interested in knowing if there are better ways to
do this.
Veronica Karlsson
HotSource wrote:
> Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
> > Subject: Good sites with frames?
>
> cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
> rare... VERY rare.
>
They do exist but I agree with you, they are rare.
> --
> -- For more FREE info on HTML and JavaScript, head to:
> -- http://interweb.simplenet.com/Hotsource/ (lessons being added)
>
Off-topic since I don't see frames on your page but here is what it
looks like in my netscape (3.something, unix):
http://www.ludd.luth.se/users/vk/pics/rubbish/hotsource.dum.gif
--
:)
Irebavpn Xneyffba
( r93...@fz.yhgu.fr uggc://jjj.yhqq.yhgu.fr/~ix/ )
HotSource
Veronica Karlsson wrote:
>
> HotSource wrote:
> > Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
> > --
> > -- For more FREE info on HTML and JavaScript, head to:
> > -- http://interweb.simplenet.com/Hotsource/ (lessons being added)
> >
>
> Off-topic since I don't see frames on your page
For a very good reason.
> but here is what it
> looks like in my netscape (3.something, unix):
>
> http://www.ludd.luth.se/users/vk/pics/rubbish/hotsource.dum.gif
Other then the offset image due to a wide margin, I don' see any
problems. What was your point?
> :)
> Irebavpn Xneyffba
> ( r93...@fz.yhgu.fr uggc://jjj.yhqq.yhgu.fr/~ix/ )
Oh, one last thing. That's off topic. :-)
--
=|Due To A Flood Of SPAM, You Must Remove The 'XX' From My Address To
Reply|=
~Shawn Scott Brady
-- For more FREE info on HTML and JavaScript, head to:
HotSource
Easy, use either textual or pictorial navigation IN your page. It's not
as hard as you think, a few images or lines of text and your all done.
Veronica Karlsson
HotSource wrote:
> Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > HotSource wrote:
> > > -- http://interweb.simplenet.com/Hotsource/ (lessons being added)
> >
> > Off-topic since I don't see frames on your page
>
> For a very good reason.
>
:)
> > but here is what it
> > looks like in my netscape (3.something, unix):
> >
> > http://www.ludd.luth.se/users/vk/pics/rubbish/hotsource.dum.gif
>
> Other then the offset image due to a wide margin, I don' see any
> problems. What was your point?
>
That was my point (some people get very upset when they see such
pictures but I think it is better that they see them than to have them
thinking that it looks exactly the same everywhere).
> > :)
> > Irebavpn Xneyffba
> > ( r93...@fz.yhgu.fr uggc://jjj.yhqq.yhgu.fr/~ix/ )
>
> Oh, one last thing. That's off topic. :-)
>
What is? My sig? (well, yours isn't so bad either) I can do worse than
that, here's one with a couple of frogs I made earlier today:
--
_ _
__ ___.--'_`. __ __ _ .'_`--.___ __
( _`.'. - 'o` ) \ \ / /__ _ _ ___ _ _ (_)__ __ _ ( 'o` - .`.'_ )
_\.'_' _.-' \ V / -_) '_/ _ \ ' \| / _/ _` | `-._ `_`./_
( \`. ) //\` \_/\___|_| \___/_||_|_\__\__,_| '/\\ ( .'/ )
\_`-'`---'\\__, ,__//`---'`-'_/
\` `-\ uggc://jjj.yhqq.yhgu.fr/hfref/ix/ /-' '/
` _____________________ r93...@fz.yhgu.fr ____________________ '
LIKE MY SIG? GO HERE: http://www.surfplaza.com/figlet/
Donald Koeleman
d2vi...@dtek.chalmers.se (Viktor Fougstedt) wrote:
>cool...@dds.nl (Donald Koeleman) writes:
>>How do you suggest i do the following without frames?
>>http://huizen.dds.nl/~cooleman/newspage.htm
>>Can hardly ask these site owners to put MY navbar on their page, can
>>i.
>>A simple link list, defeats the purpose of this page.
>What is the purpose that a link list defeats? Perhaps I'm missing
>something, but to me it seems that a link list would do just as fine,
>every browser I've seen having a "Back"-button. Why should your navbar
>be available when I view the contents of another site?
>/Viktor...
The need to reload this link list, perhaps.
The overhead provided by these two frames is offset by visiting a few
of the documents offered. At least with netscape 3, don't know about
lynx etc,.
But if you don't consider this an improvement, i can see most of the
other arguments for frames would not make any impression either.
Don't get me wrong i am not a frames lover, i agree frames are often
used without the proper care. They often leave to little viewing space
for documents, or the graphic menu does not fit the frame etc,. Or it
does not even look better. One of the home pages, i use a document
from, leaves about half the space for it, i use.
But the solution to have a navbar on the linked to page, as the answer
against all frame use, cannot be achieved!
The question remains, how do i mimic this frames page, without using
frames? Your suggestion of the back button is not good enough for me,
at least in this respect.
Donald
John Hanson
I happen to believe that http://www.northernlinks.com is a fine
example of frames. I have yet to hear from someone who thinks
otherwise but I'm sure that I will now.
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 20:14:23 -0500, HotSource <hots...@ibm.net>
enlightened the world with this comment:
>R.Parr wrote:
>>
>> Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
>>
>> > Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
>> > with frames?
>> >
>> > I know a lot of people don't like frames, but surely there must
>> > be _someone_ who has got it right. :-)
>>
>> I like to use frames for development documentation sites because I often
>> want to keep the original list available and open each document in
>> another page. I'd be interested in knowing if there are better ways to
>> do this.
>
>Easy, use either textual or pictorial navigation IN your page. It's not
>as hard as you think, a few images or lines of text and your all done.
jo...@northernlinks.com
http://northernlinks.com
Virtual Website Hosting &
Professional Web Design
HotSource
With flying fingers I wrote:
>
> Easy, use either textual or pictorial navigation IN your page. It's not
> as hard as you think, a few images or lines of text and your all done.
you're
Thum, Irmund
HotSource wrote:
> R.Parr wrote:
> >
> > Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
> >
> > > Just wondering; what are the best examples you have seen of sites
> > > with frames?
> > >
> > > I know a lot of people don't like frames, but surely there must
> > > be _someone_ who has got it right. :-)
> >
> > I like to use frames for development documentation sites because I
> often
> > want to keep the original list available and open each document in
> > another page. I'd be interested in knowing if there are better ways
> to
> > do this.
>
> Easy, use either textual or pictorial navigation IN your page. It's
> not
> as hard as you think, a few images or lines of text and your all done.
>
> --
> =|Due To A Flood Of SPAM, You Must Remove The 'XX' From My Address
> To
> Reply|=
>
> ~Shawn Scott Brady
maybe here is something for your purposes:
http://home.kiss.de/~i_thum/JS_tutorial/JS_beginners.html
__
IT
David Henderson
This is almost completely off-topic, but...
>Warren Steel wrote:
>|> "...And had it not three corners,
>|> It would not be my hat!"
Dan McGarry asked:
>This quote seems familiar, but for the life of me,
>I can't remember the source. Where's it from?
I know a slightly different version:
<PRE CLASS="song" LANG="de,en">
__ Mein Hut, der hat drei Ecken, My hat, it has three corners,
|--| Drei Ecken hat main Hut. Three corners has my hat,
() () Und hat er nicht drei Ecken, And has it not three corners,
Dann ist er night mein Hut! Then is it not my hat!
</PRE>
At least, I believe it originated from German; I first learned of it in
German class. The English version to the right is a direct word-for-word
translation, rather than a phrase-for-phrase translation. This leads to
the funny "is it" in line 4, where English would typically use "it is".
Now you know. And knowing is half the... fun of guessing randomly. :-)
David Henderson
--
Looking for Star Trek news? Visit Psi Phi's DS9 and Voyager Archives!
Available on-line at the URL: http://www.bradley.edu/campusorg/psiphi/
--<*>----<*>----<*>----<*>----<*>----<*>----<*>----<*>----<*>----<*>--
Address: dav...@imsa.edu, dav...@bradley.edu, or dav...@cyberdesic.com
Donald Koeleman
With flying fingers I wrote:
Easy, use the back button. A simple click and you're all done.
HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> wrote:
>With flying fingers I wrote:
>>
>> Easy, use either textual or pictorial navigation IN your page. It's not
>> as hard as you think, a few images or lines of text and your all done.
>----------------------------------------------------------/\
> you're
HotSource
Donald Koeleman wrote:
>
> With flying fingers I wrote:
>
> Easy, use the back button. A simple click and you're all done.
Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
page to go back.
--
=|Due To A Flood Of SPAM, You Must Remove The 'XX' From My Address To
Reply|=
~Shawn Scott Brady
-- For more FREE info on HTML and JavaScript, head to:
Chris Gray
> Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
> page to go back.
But what could be clearer and easier than the back button?
--
Chris Gray
Jedi Master Yoda
HotSource wrote:
>
> Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
> page to go back.
Yes, it's called the back button.
Why are all HTML novices so determined to make every Web page a tutorial
in how to use a web browser?
Dave Williams
> Donald Koeleman wrote:
> >
> > With flying fingers I wrote:
> >
> > Easy, use the back button. A simple click and you're all done.
>
> Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
> page to go back.
Back where? If the answer is "wherever they were last," that's what the
browser's back button is for.
I'll agree, however, that "internal" Web pages should include a link to the
index and/or sub-index that the page is a part of, rather than demanding
the user hit the back button to get to the top. The more navigational aids
the better, IMO.
Where I work, the problem is just the opposite. We have pages designed (not
by me) so that the user is expected to click on a link to go back, but the
users just hit the back button instead, which confounds the designers here.
Dave Williams "A burro is an ass. A burrow is a hole in the
IN Jersey ground. As a journalist, you are expected to
www.injersey.com know the difference." - UPI Stylebook
HotSource
Thum, Irmund wrote:
<unneeded quote snipped>
>
> maybe here is something for your purposes:
>
> http://home.kiss.de/~i_thum/JS_tutorial/JS_beginners.html
Hmm, I went there with my Netscape 4.04 browser and got about 8 JS
errors. Was there something specific you wanted me to look at?
--
=|Due To A Flood Of SPAM, You Must Remove The 'XX' From My Address To
Reply|=
~S. Scott Brady
HotSource
Dave Williams wrote:
>
> In article <3495DAA5...@ibm.net>, hots...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> > Donald Koeleman wrote:
> > >
> > > Easy, use the back button. A simple click and you're all done.
> >
> > Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
> > navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
> > page to go back.
>
> Back where? If the answer is "wherever they were last," that's what the
> browser's back button is for.
Every site has a hierarchy. Therefor, 'back' would be the page previous
to the current.
Veronica Karlsson
HotSource wrote:
> Dave Williams wrote:
> > hots...@ibm.net wrote:
> > > Donald Koeleman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Easy, use the back button. A simple click and you're all done.
> > >
> > > Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
> > > navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
> > > page to go back.
> >
> > Back where? If the answer is "wherever they were last," that's what the
> > browser's back button is for.
>
> Every site has a hierarchy. Therefor, 'back' would be the page previous
> to the current.
>
And what happens when "wherever they were last" is not on the same
"site"? They could come from some search engine, or from a link
somewhere. In that case there is a difference between "to main page" and
the back button on the browser. (and many sites are not arranged as
hierarchies)
--
Alan J. Flavell
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Veronica Karlsson quwrote:
> > Every site has a hierarchy.
I don't agree. The thing about the Web is that it's a web. Hierarchies
are merely an artefact in the mind of the author.
> > Therefor, 'back' would be the page previous
> > to the current.
Seems to be confusing "Back" (a concept whose meaning is already
well-defined in browsers) with something else. Not nice.
> And what happens when "wherever they were last" is not on the same
> "site"?
Sure, but that's only one facet of a much larger problem.
HotSource
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> >HotSource wrote:
>
> > > Every site has a hierarchy.
>
> I don't agree. The thing about the Web is that it's a web. Hierarchies
> are merely an artefact in the mind of the author.
And I don't agree with that. It isn't just in the mind of the author,
it is physical (to the extent that that is possible on a computer). If
you have 50 pages with one leading to the next to the next etc, the
hierarchy starts at page one and goes all the way down the line to page
50.
Another case in example would be a page with a copyright disclaimer. If
you have a link to that copyright page on every (say 200) page, there is
still a hierarchy. Each page is leading to the copyright. Now in the
case of trying to put a 'back' type link it would be detrimental to have
a link to all 200 pages.
> > > Therefor, 'back' would be the page previous
> > > to the current.
>
> Seems to be confusing "Back" (a concept whose meaning is already
> well-defined in browsers) with something else. Not nice.
Whatever Alan. Then let's call it the post-current-page-on-the-site.
Is that better?
<reply to someone else snipped>
Phil Stripling
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
>SNIP sources of comments
> ++ >> Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
> ++ >> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
> ++ >> page to go back.
> ++
> ++ >But what could be clearer and easier than the back button?
> ++
> ++ Well, the user might have arrived from a search engine or a link on a
> ++ different site. If there is a "logical back" page, from a given page,
> ++ there certainly ought to be an explicit link to it. On my site, for
> ++ example, I have a history of baseball (still in progress) which is
> ++ broken up into many sections. A user searching for Abner Doubleday
> ++ might arrive on what amounts to Page 2 of my baseball history. He/she
> ++ then has an option of going "back" to Page 1 or forward to Page 3.
>
>
> Those link are certainly useful. The name however can lead to some
> confusion. "Back" and "Forward" are usually terms we associate with moving
> through the visited pages history. The links from page 2 to pages 1 and
> 3 are more often called "Previous" and "Next".
>
Even "Previous" and "Next" are confusing -- they are not relative to _my_
previous. I would prefer a more descriptive label if it is at all possible,
so that I may judge whether I want to go "back" or "forward."
Back, previous, forward, and next are all often inaccurate in the world of
hypertext.
--
Phil Stripling |Sorry for the inconvenience of the
The Civilized Explorer |munged reply, but you know what.
http://www.cieux.com/ |you need to remove.
Veronica Karlsson
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Veronica Karlsson quwrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Every site has a hierarchy.
>
> I don't agree. The thing about the Web is that it's a web. Hierarchies
> are merely an artefact in the mind of the author.
>
> > > to the current.
>
> Seems to be confusing "Back" (a concept whose meaning is already
> well-defined in browsers) with something else. Not nice.
>
> > "site"?
>
> Sure, but that's only one facet of a much larger problem.
I hope you are not confusing me with "HotSource".
Alan J. Flavell
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Veronica Karlsson quwrote:
> >
..
> >
> I hope you are not confusing me with "HotSource".
I may be old and grey, but I can still count. To two, at least.
Sorry if I upset you.
Veronica Karlsson
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > I hope you are not confusing me with "HotSource".
>
> I may be old and grey, but I can still count. To two, at least.
>
> Sorry if I upset you.
Oh, I don't think you have a problem knowing who is who. :) That
comment was as much for the rest of the group as for you to avoid
confusion. Since you commented on HotSorce's text but didn't include his
name at the top somebody might have got the idea that I said things that
I didn't say...
[let's forget this before it becomes a long off-topic thread]
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
gr...@btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be (Chris Gray) wrote:
>In article <3495DAA5...@ibm.net> HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> writes:
>> Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
>> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
>> page to go back.
>But what could be clearer and easier than the back button?
Well, the user might have arrived from a search engine or a link on a
different site. If there is a "logical back" page, from a given page,
there certainly ought to be an explicit link to it. On my site, for
example, I have a history of baseball (still in progress) which is
broken up into many sections. A user searching for Abner Doubleday
might arrive on what amounts to Page 2 of my baseball history. He/she
then has an option of going "back" to Page 1 or forward to Page 3.
--
Ralph Hickok
Author "The Pro Football Fan's Companion"
Macmillan, 1995 (Paper--Green & Gold Cover)
Hickok's Sports History: http://www.ultranet.com/~rhickok/
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
>>
>> HotSource wrote:
>> With Homesite
>> 2.5, in a about 10 clicks, I could have a navbar in 100 documents.
>Using a WYSIWYG editor to 'find and replace' is an expectable way to
>change many pages. Too bad not many people take advantage of this,
>instead they use frames. pity.
Why a WYSIWYG editor? Can't most editors do a global search/replace?
I do it all the time with HotDog Pro, which is not WYSIWYG.
Abigail
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com (rhi...@ma.ultranet.com) wrote on 1569 September
1993 in <URL: news:677d03$fc6$2...@decius.ultra.net>:
++ gr...@btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be (Chris Gray) wrote:
++
++ >In article <3495DAA5...@ibm.net> HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> writes:
++
++ >> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
++ >> page to go back.
++
++ >But what could be clearer and easier than the back button?
++
++ Well, the user might have arrived from a search engine or a link on a
++ different site. If there is a "logical back" page, from a given page,
++ there certainly ought to be an explicit link to it. On my site, for
++ example, I have a history of baseball (still in progress) which is
++ broken up into many sections. A user searching for Abner Doubleday
++ might arrive on what amounts to Page 2 of my baseball history. He/she
++ then has an option of going "back" to Page 1 or forward to Page 3.
Those link are certainly useful. The name however can lead to some
confusion. "Back" and "Forward" are usually terms we associate with moving
through the visited pages history. The links from page 2 to pages 1 and
3 are more often called "Previous" and "Next".
Abigail
--
Anyone who slaps a "this page is best viewed with Browser X" label
on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the
Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on
another computer, another word processor, or another network.
[Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996]
Decklin Foster
Quoth Jedi Master Yoda <yo...@dagoba.org>:
>Why are all HTML novices so determined to make every Web page a tutorial
>in how to use a web browser?
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. When one learns something, the
temptation is to go right out and use it. Witness all the posts in here made
without lurking.
Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Why a WYSIWYG editor? Can't most editors do a global search/replace?
| I do it all the time with HotDog Pro, which is not WYSIWYG.
Many UNIX editors can't, because the people who made them didn't
consider that people might want to use something as unsuitable as an
editor for that. Replacing "foo" with "bar" in all files in a
directory (and all sub-directories below it) is a UNIX one-liner if
you combine find and sed.
--
"These are, as I began, cumbersome ways / to kill a man. Simpler, direct,
and much more neat / is to see that he is living somewhere in the middle /
of the twentieth century, and leave him there." -- Edwin Brock
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
Alan J. Flavell
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, HotSource wrote:
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> >
> > >HotSource wrote:
> >
> > > > Every site has a hierarchy.
> >
> > I don't agree. The thing about the Web is that it's a web. Hierarchies
> > are merely an artefact in the mind of the author.
>
> And I don't agree with that. It isn't just in the mind of the author,
> it is physical (to the extent that that is possible on a computer).
Yes, fair comment. But it's been done that way because the author
had a particular structure in mind, and chose to store the documents
into a hierarchy that reflected the conceptual structure.
A reader might want to view the documents in quite a different
sequence, which is where the concept of the "web" comes in again.
> > > > Therefor, 'back' would be the page previous
> > > > to the current.
> >
> > Seems to be confusing "Back" (a concept whose meaning is already
> > well-defined in browsers) with something else. Not nice.
>
> Whatever Alan. Then let's call it the post-current-page-on-the-site.
> Is that better?
It seems to me that it's a long-standing convention that "back" and
"forward" are operations that refer to the reader's own history stack.
Moving around in the author's conceptual hierarchy (which could, as you
rightly say, also be reflected in the URL hierarchy that the author
users) is usually called "next", "previous", "up", "home" and so on.
It's only too easy to confuse readers if you are forever trying to
redefine the user interface. Creativity is great in the right place,
but continually redefining the user interface is the wrong way to
exhibit creativity, IMNSHO (ref: Jakob Nielsen, as usual).
Viktor Fougstedt
Lars Marius Garshol <lar...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>* rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
>|
>| Why a WYSIWYG editor? Can't most editors do a global search/replace?
>| I do it all the time with HotDog Pro, which is not WYSIWYG.
>Many UNIX editors can't, because the people who made them didn't
>consider that people might want to use something as unsuitable as an
Which editors have you been using? Emacs can, and I believe that vi
can as well. Although I must admit that they do tend to hide it a bit
for the very reason you mention.
/Viktor...
--
--| Viktor Fougstedt, Orkesterg. 21, 421 39 V. Frolunda, Sweden |--
--| http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d2viktor/ |--
--| ...soon we'll be sliding down the razor blade of life. /Tom Lehrer |--
Donald Koeleman
dwil...@injersey.com (Dave Williams) wrote:
>In article <3495DAA5...@ibm.net>, hots...@ibm.net wrote:
>> Donald Koeleman wrote:
>> >
>> > With flying fingers I wrote:
>> >
>> > Easy, use the back button. A simple click and you're all done.
>>
>> Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
>> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
>> page to go back.
>The more navigational aids
>the better, IMO.
Loads of frames and a cursor!
(;-) a fine example of quoting out of contex.)
One of the things i wanted to say, with my first reply to hotsource,
was that his prefered choice of expressing the relation between
documents is not the only and or natural way.
Back buttons, browser histories or even frames are other options.
Please, do not use "graphic-only" links. Saves us surfers a lot of
time and hassle.
Donald
Chris Gray
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> >
> > >HotSource wrote:
> >
> > > > Every site has a hierarchy.
> >
> > I don't agree. The thing about the Web is that it's a web. Hierarchies
> > are merely an artefact in the mind of the author.
>
> And I don't agree with that. It isn't just in the mind of the author,
> it is physical (to the extent that that is possible on a computer). If
> you have 50 pages with one leading to the next to the next etc, the
> hierarchy starts at page one and goes all the way down the line to page
> 50.
Well I'm going to disagree with both of you. :P Structure is in the mind of
the *reader*. The reader will of course be helped if the author takes care to
think about the way(s!) in which the material can be used, and provides the
reader with appropriate signposts and landmarks.
A completely linear site, in which each document has only the relations
"successor" and "predecessor", makes poor use of the medium (and BTW is
not "hierarchical"). A simple hierarchy (ToC, chapters, sections) is a
bit better; two or more hierarchies, combined with a "guided tour", is
often very good. But in the end the author-supplied structure is there
to help the reader build her mental structure of the site.
See <URL: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/Structure.html> for more about this.
> Another case in example would be a page with a copyright disclaimer. If
> you have a link to that copyright page on every (say 200) page, there is
> still a hierarchy. Each page is leading to the copyright. Now in the
> case of trying to put a 'back' type link it would be detrimental to have
> a link to all 200 pages.
That's why browsers have a history stack and a "back button".
(Note: this is an example of an "inverted" hierarchy: fan-in as opposed to fan-out).
> > > > Therefor, 'back' would be the page previous
> > > > to the current.
> >
> > Seems to be confusing "Back" (a concept whose meaning is already
> > well-defined in browsers) with something else. Not nice.
>
> Whatever Alan. Then let's call it the post-current-page-on-the-site.
> Is that better?
Let's distinguish between "Next" and "Previous" (in a guided tour), "Back" and
"Forward" (in the list of documents already viewed), and "Up" (in a hierarchy:
there is no "Down" :>).
See <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-html40/types.html#type-links> (not that these
definitions are new to HTML 4.0: IIRC they go way way back).
--
Chris Gray
HotSource
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, HotSource wrote:
>
> > it is physical (to the extent that that is possible on a computer).
>
> had a particular structure in mind, and chose to store the documents
> into a hierarchy that reflected the conceptual structure.
Right, but just because the site is on the web does not mean it has no
beginning, end, or structure. It is a vast network of webpages, but
there is still structure. If my page has a link to yahoo, and they have
a link to my page, it does not mean we are part of the same site. It is
connected, but still separate.
> A reader might want to view the documents in quite a different
> sequence, which is where the concept of the "web" comes in again.
Even if the site is viewed in a 'zig zag' order, that doesn't change the
structure of the site. If you start at page 10, go to page 30, and then
to page 2, that does not make page 10, 1; 30, 2; or 2, 3.
> >
> > Whatever Alan. Then let's call it the post-current-page-on-the-site.
> > Is that better?
>
> It seems to me that it's a long-standing convention that "back" and
> "forward" are operations that refer to the reader's own history stack.
>
> Moving around in the author's conceptual hierarchy (which could, as you
> rightly say, also be reflected in the URL hierarchy that the author
> users) is usually called "next", "previous", "up", "home" and so on.
Ok, fine, 'previous'.
We are spinning off into the abyss here. When I suggested the use of a
link from within a page to go to the 'previous' page, it was in the
context of a site's navigation. Not coming from an external source, but
from within the site's hierarchy. It was suggested by another that the
'back' button was a better way, which is not true. Making the user go
to the 'previous' page in the hierarchy with the 'back' button is BAD
design. In the case of entering the page from an external source, the
user would have no means of viewing a page lower in the hierarchy.
--
=|Due To A Flood Of SPAM, You Must Remove The 'XX' From My Address To
Reply|=
~S. Scott Brady
- For more FREE info on HTML and JavaScript, head to:
- http://interweb.simplenet.com/Hotsource/index.shtml
(Essential HTML is back!)
Alan J. Flavell
On 17 Dec 1997, Chris Gray wrote:
> Well I'm going to disagree with both of you. :P Structure is in the mind of
> the *reader*.
Yes, good point.
> The reader will of course be helped if the author takes care to
> think about the way(s!) in which the material can be used, and provides the
> reader with appropriate signposts and landmarks.
Those "signposts and landmarks" will reflect the author's view of
the hierarchy, so we were both right, I'd say.
David W. Morgan
In article <678ch7$558$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
Viktor Fougstedt <d2vi...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>Lars Marius Garshol <lar...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>
>>* rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
>>|
>>| Why a WYSIWYG editor? Can't most editors do a global search/replace?
>>| I do it all the time with HotDog Pro, which is not WYSIWYG.
>
>>Many UNIX editors can't, because the people who made them didn't
>>consider that people might want to use something as unsuitable as an
>
>Which editors have you been using? Emacs can, and I believe that vi
>can as well. Although I must admit that they do tend to hide it a bit
>for the very reason you mention.
>
ex
:%s/new/old/g
Or is that :s%/old/new/g ?
--
dmo...@efn.org _/_/_/_/_/ David W. Morgan \_\_\_\_\_ Honolulu Hawaii
http://www.efn.org/~dmorgan/congress.html - Congressional E-Mail Addresses
http://www.efn.org/~dmorgan/worst.html ------- Worst Web Pages of Congress
http://www.efn.org/~dmorgan/access.html - Free Internet access from Hawaii
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
techn...@mindless.com (Decklin Foster) wrote:
Similarly, people who are new to desktop publishing tend to cram every
available font onto a page. It's just so exciting to have all that
power!
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>rhi...@ma.ultranet.com (rhi...@ma.ultranet.com) wrote on 1569 September
>1993 in <URL: news:677d03$fc6$2...@decius.ultra.net>:
>++ gr...@btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be (Chris Gray) wrote:
>++
>++ >In article <3495DAA5...@ibm.net> HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> writes:
>++
>++ >> Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
>++ >> navigate. There should be a clear and easy way to click from within the
>++ >> page to go back.
>++
>++ >But what could be clearer and easier than the back button?
>++
>++ Well, the user might have arrived from a search engine or a link on a
>++ different site. If there is a "logical back" page, from a given page,
>++ there certainly ought to be an explicit link to it. On my site, for
>++ example, I have a history of baseball (still in progress) which is
>++ broken up into many sections. A user searching for Abner Doubleday
>++ might arrive on what amounts to Page 2 of my baseball history. He/she
>++ then has an option of going "back" to Page 1 or forward to Page 3.
>Those link are certainly useful. The name however can lead to some
>confusion. "Back" and "Forward" are usually terms we associate with moving
>through the visited pages history. The links from page 2 to pages 1 and
>3 are more often called "Previous" and "Next".
Yes. In fact, I use "Previous" and "Next." I wrote "Back" and
"Forward" above only to point up the distinction between using the
browser's Back button and a link to the "Logical Back" page.
Veronica Karlsson
Viktor Fougstedt wrote:
> Lars Marius Garshol <lar...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> >* rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
> >|
> >| Why a WYSIWYG editor? Can't most editors do a global search/replace?
> >| I do it all the time with HotDog Pro, which is not WYSIWYG.
> >
> >Many UNIX editors can't, because the people who made them didn't
> >consider that people might want to use something as unsuitable as an
>
> Which editors have you been using? Emacs can, and I believe that vi
> can as well. Although I must admit that they do tend to hide it a bit
> for the very reason you mention.
>
This sounds very interesting, how is it done?
(my address is e93...@sm.luth.se if you feel that it is too off-topic
for this group)
Chris Gray
> Ok, fine, 'previous'.
>
> We are spinning off into the abyss here. When I suggested the use of a
> link from within a page to go to the 'previous' page, it was in the
> context of a site's navigation. Not coming from an external source, but
> from within the site's hierarchy. It was suggested by another that the
> 'back' button was a better way, which is not true. Making the user go
> to the 'previous' page in the hierarchy with the 'back' button is BAD
> design. In the case of entering the page from an external source, the
> user would have no means of viewing a page lower in the hierarchy.
The whole "disagreement" would seem to rest on a terminological confusion.
When you talk about going "back" (as you did), ten people out of nine will
assume that you mean "Back" as in what the button labelled "Back" on their
browser does. Hypertext browsers have had "Back" and "Up" buttons since
before the WWW was invented: some of them have also had "Next" and "Previous".
If you are really trying to say that every document should have a "Prev" link,
then I still disagree. :) There is something to be said for defining a "guided
tour" which will lead the reader through every document on a site in a logical
sequence, but it is less important that they should be able to follow the whole
tour in reverse order. "Up", "Contents", and "Index" are far more valuable IMHO.
This is wandering off into c.i.w.a.site-design, n'est-ce pas?
--
Chris Gray
Chris Gray
In article <Pine.A41.3.95a.971217202140.98884E-100000@sp057> "Alan J. Flavell"
<fla...@mail.cern.ch> writes:
Who both? You and I or you and Hot Source?
Well, this is the season of goodwill so everybody's allowed to be right. :) Yes
of course it's the author's job to create structure, but a structure that exists
only in the author's mind is only a psychological fact, and not a fact of the WWW.
The same goes for a hierarchical structure of files or URLs (if the reader is reduced
to peering into the entrails of the URL then the author has definitely failed!).
This is all "motherhood" I know, but it seems that today's mothers are not doing
their job. If they were, WWW browsers would have not just a "Back" button, but
"Up", "Next", "Contents", "Index" as well ...
--
Chris Gray
Deeper Blue
It seems that a number of threads are taking an interesting turn. Namely, the
recognition that structure in HTML is only skin deep.
Chris Gray wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.A41.3.95a.971217202140.98884E-100000@sp057> "Alan J. Flavell"
> <fla...@mail.cern.ch> writes:
>
> > On 17 Dec 1997, Chris Gray wrote:
> >
> > > Well I'm going to disagree with both of you. :P Structure is in the mind of
> > > the *reader*.
> >
> > Yes, good point.
But it shouldn't be, should it? I'd feel happier if the structure were
instantiated. I guess that's why even the abortion that is javascript (extreme
loose typing and minimal to zero distinction between arrays and objects)
offers some relief to my general unhappiness with HTML.
> > > The reader will of course be helped if the author takes care to
> > > think about the way(s!) in which the material can be used, and provides the
> > > reader with appropriate signposts and landmarks.
> >
> > Those "signposts and landmarks" will reflect the author's view of
> > the hierarchy, so we were both right, I'd say.
>
> Who both? You and I or you and Hot Source?
What? Both? All three of you? Or the four of us?
> Well, this is the season of goodwill so everybody's allowed to be right. :)
Whew! Thank goodness.
> Yes
> of course it's the author's job to create structure, but a structure that exists only
> in the author's mind is only a psychological fact, and not a fact of the WWW.
> The same goes for a hierarchical structure of files or URLs (if the reader is reduced
> to peering into the entrails of the URL then the author has definitely failed!).
>
> This is all "motherhood" I know, but it seems that today's mothers are not doing
> their job. If they were, WWW browsers would have not just a "Back" button, but
> "Up", "Next", "Contents", "Index" as well ...
I thought that's what the ill-defined META name values were buried there for.
You know, live menus in NS5 etc.
Steve Davis
Christopher Davis
CG> == Chris Gray <gr...@btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be>
CG> This is all "motherhood" I know, but it seems that today's mothers
CG> are not doing their job. If they were, WWW browsers would have not
CG> just a "Back" button, but "Up", "Next", "Contents", "Index" as well
Unfortunately, instead of <LINK>, they thought we said we wanted <BLINK>.
--
Christopher Davis <c...@kei.com> <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ >
Geographic locations in DNS! <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/dns-loc/ >
Jude Crouch
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Veronica Karlsson <dr...@on.spammer> wrote:
> Viktor Fougstedt wrote:
> > Lars Marius Garshol <lar...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> > >* rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
> > >|
> > >| Why a WYSIWYG editor? Can't most editors do a global search/replace?
> > >| I do it all the time with HotDog Pro, which is not WYSIWYG.
> > >
> > >Many UNIX editors can't, because the people who made them didn't
> > >consider that people might want to use something as unsuitable as an
> >
> > Which editors have you been using? Emacs can, and I believe that vi
> > can as well. Although I must admit that they do tend to hide it a bit
> > for the very reason you mention.
> >
> This sounds very interesting, how is it done?
On all things Unix, the O'Reilly books reign. A good, quick
reference is "Unix in a Nutshell". Unix editors that have
global search and replace include ed, sed, vi, emacs, awk,
and ex. All use similar syntax so once you learn the syntax,
you can use the tool which best fits the situation. O'Reilly
has other books which explain the specific tools as well.
Unix is particularly well suited for text handling, and repetitive
tasks can be easily scripted in the shell for future uses.
Jude
--
Jude Crouch (jcr...@pobox.com) - Computing since 1967!
Crouch Enterprises - Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting
Oak Park, IL 708-848-0145 URL: http://www.pobox.com/~jcrouch
Dave Williams
In article <349827C5...@ibm.net>, hots...@ibm.net wrote:
(snipped discussion of back button, etc.)
> Ok, fine, 'previous'.
>
> We are spinning off into the abyss here. When I suggested the use of a
> link from within a page to go to the 'previous' page, it was in the
> context of a site's navigation. Not coming from an external source, but
> from within the site's hierarchy. It was suggested by another that the
> 'back' button was a better way, which is not true. Making the user go
> to the 'previous' page in the hierarchy with the 'back' button is BAD
> design. In the case of entering the page from an external source, the
> user would have no means of viewing a page lower in the hierarchy.
Aha! It's a definitional problem!. If one is entering the page from an
"external source," the "previous" or "back" page is the same external
source they came from, IMO, not a page higher in the hierarchy.
When you say "back" or "previous," do you mean "toward the 'main' page," as
opposed to "wherever the user was last"? If so, then your remark about bad
design makes perfect sense. I totally agree that links to various parts of
a hierarchy should be included on all pages, and that we shouldn't be
expecting people to use the back button.
I think what may have confused some people here (like me) is that we might
have been assuming we were talking about the "how to build a back button
into the page" concept, so beloved of designer-types.
Dave Williams "A burro is an ass. A burrow is a hole in the
IN Jersey ground. As a journalist, you are expected to
www.injersey.com know the difference." - UPI Stylebook
Chris Gray
> It seems that a number of threads are taking an interesting turn. Namely, the
> recognition that structure in HTML is only skin deep.
I think we need to distinguish various kinds of "structure" here:
- structure within a document vs. structure over several documents (a "site").
- "objective" structure versus "subjective" structure.
By "objective" structure I mean the kind which is expressed in HTML and is passed
from machine to machine (server to client). By "subjective" structure I mean the
human reader's mental model of the document or site. (Normally this model will
be trivial at the document level, but nopt at the site level).
My intervention quoted below was intended as a reminder that the "objective"
structure exists only to serve the "subjective" (just as words and grammar exist
only to further communication).
> Chris Gray wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pine.A41.3.95a.971217202140.98884E-100000@sp057> "Alan J. Flavell"
> > <fla...@mail.cern.ch> writes:
> >
> > > On 17 Dec 1997, Chris Gray wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well I'm going to disagree with both of you. :P Structure is in the mind of
> > > > the *reader*.
> > >
> > > Yes, good point.
>
> But it shouldn't be, should it? I'd feel happier if the structure were
> instantiated. I guess that's why even the abortion that is javascript (extreme
> loose typing and minimal to zero distinction between arrays and objects)
> offers some relief to my general unhappiness with HTML.
I think it is neither possible nor desirable to make the subjective structure
explicit in the document. Not possible, because there may be as many mental
models as there are readers; and not desirable, because the author should not
debar readers from forming a new model.
SFAICS client-side scripting allows the author to add procedural instructions
to what is already expressed declaratively in the HTML. I suppose that's
progress of a kind. (As for javascript in particular: call me when it works.
Not before).
[me again]
> > > > The reader will of course be helped if the author takes care to
> > > > think about the way(s!) in which the material can be used, and provides the
> > > > reader with appropriate signposts and landmarks.
[and again - self-quotation is the order of the day]
> > Yes
> > of course it's the author's job to create structure, but a structure that exists only
> > in the author's mind is only a psychological fact, and not a fact of the WWW.
> > The same goes for a hierarchical structure of files or URLs (if the reader is reduced
> > to peering into the entrails of the URL then the author has definitely failed!).
> >
> > This is all "motherhood" I know, but it seems that today's mothers are not doing
> > their job. If they were, WWW browsers would have not just a "Back" button, but
> > "Up", "Next", "Contents", "Index" as well ...
[Steve]
> I thought that's what the ill-defined META name values were buried there for.
> You know, live menus in NS5 etc.
I was thinking more of the increasingly well-defined REL and REV attributes of
LINK and A. (Study their progress through HTML n.0 for n-2,3,4). These help the
author to describe a wide variety of *relationships* which can be intra- or inter-
document, whereas the HTML constructs define *structures* within a document.
(Structures are a class of relationships, mainly limited to sequence and containment).
NS5? I was hoping to see them in NS "supports-HTML3" 2. :<[
But we're back to the "objective" structure again. (Well, this *is* the HTML
group, not the site-design group ...)
--
Chris Gray
Steve Davis
Chris Gray wrote:
>
> [Steve]
> > I thought that's what the ill-defined META name values were buried there for.
> > You know, live menus in NS5 etc.
>
> I was thinking more of the increasingly well-defined REL and REV attributes of
> LINK and A. (Study their progress through HTML n.0 for n-2,3,4). These help the
> author to describe a wide variety of *relationships* which can be intra- or inter-
> document, whereas the HTML constructs define *structures* within a document.
> (Structures are a class of relationships, mainly limited to sequence and containment).
Eeek. Yes. I meant LINK [kicks self]. But where's the definition of accepted
values for rel/rev? Every reference I've seen discusses this issue in a
less-than-comprehensive manner. Is there anything that covers the lot (sensibly)?
As far as structures within documents goes, there's little to no context
offered for the semantics of elements; like how does H1 relate to P, P to LI,
LI to TD, TABLE to TR, TR to TD, etc, etc, etc *objectively*? It's largely
just a random jumble of tags AFAICS (which is what I meant by the
skin-deepness of HTML structure). Anyhow, that's what bothers me. So am I
missing some important insight, or is that the way it is? If it is, then
surely that is not acceptable (even in the cause of preserving the generality
of application of HTML, which if threatened by these relationships would
merely mean that the object model is wrong)?
Finally, I find your definitions of structures and relationships confusing.
Surely, structures are not a class of relationships but are *built from*
relationships of component objects. The relationships of structures to
structures builds larger structures, etc. If structures can be classified it
would therefore be through the patterns of their internal relationships not by
the relationships themselves. So we could have a class of structures, but not
AFAICS a class of relationships. I'm not even sure you could class a
relationship.... perhaps I'll ask the wife :)
Steve Davis
Chris Gray
> Chris Gray wrote:
> >
> > [Steve]
> > > I thought that's what the ill-defined META name values were buried there for.
> > > You know, live menus in NS5 etc.
> >
> > I was thinking more of the increasingly well-defined REL and REV attributes of
> > LINK and A. (Study their progress through HTML n.0 for n-2,3,4). These help the
> > author to describe a wide variety of *relationships* which can be intra- or inter-
> > document, whereas the HTML constructs define *structures* within a document.
> > (Structures are a class of relationships, mainly limited to sequence and containment).
>
> Eeek. Yes. I meant LINK [kicks self]. But where's the definition of accepted
> values for rel/rev? Every reference I've seen discusses this issue in a
> less-than-comprehensive manner. Is there anything that covers the lot (sensibly)?
Try this one: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-html40/types.html#type-links >.
> As far as structures within documents goes, there's little to no context
> offered for the semantics of elements; like how does H1 relate to P, P to LI,
> LI to TD, TABLE to TR, TR to TD, etc, etc, etc *objectively*? It's largely
> just a random jumble of tags AFAICS (which is what I meant by the
> skin-deepness of HTML structure). Anyhow, that's what bothers me. So am I
> missing some important insight, or is that the way it is? If it is, then
> surely that is not acceptable (even in the cause of preserving the generality
> of application of HTML, which if threatened by these relationships would
> merely mean that the object model is wrong)?
This is what I meant by succession and containment: the P "comes after" the H1,
the TR is "inside" the TABLE, and that's about it. Actually it's not quite
that bad, especially in HTML 4.0: e.g. a TABLE can contain something which
"is a caption to" it, etc.. But it would be fair to say that HTML does not
offer a very rich structural model.
> Finally, I find your definitions of structures and relationships confusing.
> Surely, structures are not a class of relationships but are *built from*
> relationships of component objects. The relationships of structures to
> structures builds larger structures, etc. If structures can be classified it
> would therefore be through the patterns of their internal relationships not by
> the relationships themselves. So we could have a class of structures, but not
> AFAICS a class of relationships. I'm not even sure you could class a
> relationship.... perhaps I'll ask the wife :)
There are certainly classes of relationships: transitive and intransitive,
reflexive or no ... I guess I'm really talking algebra here. A relationship
is an instance of a binary relation, and structure can be defined in terms of
such relations. So the various LIs of an OL have the relationship "comes-after"
(or not) to eachother, and each has the relationship "is-inside" to the OL. So
all structure is [built on] relationships, but not all relationships are [builders
of] structure. That's all.
--
Chris Gray
Steve Davis
Chris Gray wrote:
[I asked for a good ref. to values for LINK rel/rev]
> Try this one: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-html40/types.html#type-links >.
Typical. You search all over the web for something and the information is
sitting right there on your local hard disk! Well, I guess it has at least
inspired me to read the whole thing again rather more carefully. Evidently, it
didn't sink in effectively first time around.
Thanks for your patient response, Chris.
Steve Davis
Terry Martin
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:34:29 -0500, HotSource <hots...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>>> Easy, use either textual or pictorial navigation IN your page. It's not
>>> as hard as you think, a few images or lines of text and your all done.
>>----------------------------------------------------------/\
>> you're
>>
>Webmasters shouldn't reply on the 'back' button for there users to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------^
their
Decklin Foster
>> ++ If there is a "logical back" page, from a given page,
>> ++ there certainly ought to be an explicit link to it.
Explicit? no, it's not part of the textual (or whatever) content. That's what
the LINK element is for.
Jukka Korpela
On 19 Dec 1997 13:23:30 GMT, gr...@btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be (Chris
Gray) wrote:
>In article <349A4C8C...@dircon.co.uk> Steve Davis <ste...@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>> Eeek. Yes. I meant LINK [kicks self]. But where's the definition of accepted
>> values for rel/rev? Every reference I've seen discusses this issue in a
>> less-than-comprehensive manner. Is there anything that covers the lot (sensibly)?
>
>Try this one: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-html40/types.html#type-links >.
Definitely the first document to refer to in this context nowadays,
but a couple of notes:
- it is descriptive, not prescriptive (authoritative); that is, it
seems to describe some practices instead of making those things part
of the HTML 4.0 specification itself
- in fact, currently user agents usually have just a few of such
practices, so it isn't really that descriptive either
- thus, it's not really a "definition of accepted values", although
it's the best in this respect we have now.
Thus, I'd say authors should start using those values but not yet rely
on them. One should link pages together both using LINK REL=... and
using explicit A HREF= links (naturally, with REL attributes too) e.g.
at the bottom of a page, if it is essential that pages are
interlinked.
Notice that the semi-accepted set of values basically covers
interlinking of pages within a "site" (to use the popular vague word).
Thus it seems to be designed for the LINK elements, not for the A
elements (to which REL and REV can be attached, too).
--
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/
Warren Steel
Jukka Korpela wrote:
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-html40/types.html#type-links >.
> Definitely the first document to refer to in this context nowadays,
> but a couple of notes:
[ thoughtful and useful cautions, as usual ]
As to the URL, the new and authoritative one is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#h-6.12
--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
URL: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
AsianMafia
My Happy Hour page is a good example of a 3 set frame. One frame for
naviagation, one for the body, and one for my advertisements.
---------------------------------------
Happy Hour Fonts! "Generation X's Font Site"
GRAFFITI, CLUB, GRUNGE, MORE...
http://members.aol.com/chichix/happyhour
CLICK HERE
---------------------------------------
Warren Steel
Mark Waterous wrote:
> >> Subject: Good sites with frames?
> >That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together. In rare
> >cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
> >rare... VERY rare.
> Not true. I believe I make very good use of frames on my site
bully for you.
> (mainly due to the fact that you can't see the frames... another one
> of those 'seamless' pages, and also because its a very simple
> frameset), and I have come across many pages that make good use of
> them.
Those are the worst kind, immensely annoying and
frustrating, since the separate frames scroll separately,
and you must "activate" a frame to scroll it, hoping that
you're clicking your mouse in the right place, even
though you can't see the boundary lines! Fortunately,
I think Opera allows the user to force frame borders
on all framesets, or at least to show an outline around
the active set. And Lynx allows the user to navigate a
frameset (hopefully with informationally-named frames)
without putting up with the visible or invisible borders.
Generally, when I encounter frames, I back out immediately,
and come back later with Lynx or with Opera and frames
disabled.
> The thing that annoys me is when someone has a graphic, or
> text button on their first page that say: Frames -- No Frames. Pick
> one!
That seems to me a rather courteous offer. Doesn't
annoy me a bit.
Mark Waterous
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:12:11 -0500, HotSource <hots...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
>
>> Subject: Good sites with frames?
>
>That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together. In rare
>cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
>rare... VERY rare.
Not true. I believe I make very good use of frames on my site
(mainly due to the fact that you can't see the frames... another one
of those 'seamless' pages, and also because its a very simple
frameset), and I have come across many pages that make good use of
them.
The thing that annoys me is when someone has a graphic, or
text button on their first page that say: Frames -- No Frames. Pick
one! In addition the only truly bad use of frames is when someone
takes them to the extreme, like sony did at one point on their page.
They had a frameset on the first page for their playstation I believe
it was, that contained upwards of 13 frames. each frame contained but
one graphical button. Thats just somebody who thought it was a great
novelty, and it probably soon wore off.
Frames greatly help a page... if utilized properly. Sorry for
the long-winded reply to this, its first thing in the morning, I just
woke up, and have lots and lots of energy.... :)
-------------------
Mark Waterous
-------------------
HotSource
Mark Waterous wrote:
>
> HotSource wrote:
>
> >That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together. In rare
> >cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
> >rare... VERY rare.
>
> Not true. I believe I make very good use of frames on my site
> (mainly due to the fact that you can't see the frames... another one
> of those 'seamless' pages, and also because its a very simple
> frameset), and I have come across many pages that make good use of
> them.
Where? I don't see any URL's?
> The thing that annoys me is when someone has a graphic, or
> text button on their first page that say: Frames -- No Frames. Pick
> one!
That is much better then having them shoved in your face, and then
trying in vein to find the no frames link. It's like walking in and
having someone go "HERE! Have some FRAMES!!!"
> In addition the only truly bad use of frames is when someone
> takes them to the extreme, like sony did at one point on their page.
> They had a frameset on the first page for their playstation I believe
> it was, that contained upwards of 13 frames.
That is one of many bad designs. What about slow loading? Horizontal
and vertical scroll bars in every frame? Or seeing only 3/4 of a
picture? The list goes on:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
> each frame contained but
> one graphical button. Thats just somebody who thought it was a great
> novelty, and it probably soon wore off.
>
> Frames greatly help a page... if utilized properly.
Correct. That is why people should first learn proper HTML and design,
considering cross platform/browser compatibility. Once they do that
they will most likely realize the obvious pitfalls of frames.
Toby Speight
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Phil> Phil Stripling <URL:mailto:phi...@what.civex.com>
> In <URL:news:w3qra7c...@shell.tsoft.com>, Phil wrote:
Phil> abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
>> Those link are certainly useful. The name however can lead to some
>> confusion. "Back" and "Forward" are usually terms we associate with
>> moving through the visited pages history. The links from page 2 to
>> pages 1 and 3 are more often called "Previous" and "Next".
Phil> Even "Previous" and "Next" are confusing -- they are not relative
Phil> to _my_ previous.
True, but they *are* the established convention, so it's only fair to
users not to give them something unfamiliar.
Phil> I would prefer a more descriptive label if it is at all possible,
Phil> so that I may judge whether I want to go "back" or "forward."
You mean <LINK REL="next" TITLE="Chapter 3: This & That">?
Phil> Back, previous, forward, and next are all often inaccurate in
Phil> the world of hypertext.
True, but in many parts of that world they _are_ appropriate, and it
makes sense to restrict this discussion to that part. I have some
sequences of resources, and some sets of resources; navigation of sets
is usually best done through its index/overview/contents/whatever.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNJ6PlOdsuUurvcRtAQH5awMAuqTrfpTz16MLhfSpwz0Taj4uhNQkeHQp
dlQ35Of7Okczh1PayBvcD8Qm2Y8b5cnDS0il4CPOP9km7lRt6U8u6VFopukOi49M
lMmAm+51GItbQw8GCjXx/x3UTEFBr68d
=tl8O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"You can ... sell your soul for complete control -
is that really what you need?" (Pink Floyd)
Phil Stripling
Toby Speight <Toby.S...@digitivity.com> writes:
>
> Phil> Even "Previous" and "Next" are confusing -- they are not relative
> Phil> to _my_ previous.
>
> True, but they *are* the established convention, so it's only fair to
> users not to give them something unfamiliar.
>
>
> Phil> I would prefer a more descriptive label if it is at all possible,
> Phil> so that I may judge whether I want to go "back" or "forward."
>
> You mean <LINK REL="next" TITLE="Chapter 3: This & That">?
>
Right. I realize next a previous are conventions and that users may find
the words familiar, but there may well be no context which gives a user
coming into a page from a search engine any clue on what was previous
(to the author) and what is next (again, to the author). Small comfort to
know what the words are without having a bigger picture to have some hint
about where the words will take me.
It happens almost daily that I get to a page from "out of nowhere," and
find something interesting, with links at the bottom for back, next, and
home, and have no idea what the series is. Back (or previous) and next tell
me there's a series, but not anything more. All I'd ask for is a hint -- If
the title of Chapter 3 is meaningful, then that is fine.
>
> Phil> Back, previous, forward, and next are all often inaccurate in
> Phil> the world of hypertext.
>
> True, but in many parts of that world they _are_ appropriate, and it
> makes sense to restrict this discussion to that part.
Well, I have some hesitation -- again because of a lack of context. Has
this thread said it's restricted to the parts of the world where back and
next are appropriate? It has seemed more general to me.
> I have some
> sequences of resources, and some sets of resources; navigation of sets
> is usually best done through its index/overview/contents/whatever.
>
There are many sites with, for example, tutorials, where you need to follow
an order; often, however, there is no navigation hint on how to get to the
index or table of contents -- just back and forward links. I'm faced with
chopping pieces of the URL off to try to navigate "back" to the
beginning. Having that link to the overview may be crucial for people to
get useable information from a site.
>
> --
> "You can ... sell your soul for complete control -
> is that really what you need?" (Pink Floyd)
Any offers? :->
--
Phil Stripling |Sorry for the inconvenience of the
The Civilized Explorer |munged reply, but you know what.
http://www.cieux.com/ |you need to remove.
Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
goto www.pdesign.net; the closest thing you'll find to having both "good"
and "frames" together. . .
HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<349E00DE...@ibm.net>...
Alan J. Flavell
On 22 Dec 1997, Phil Stripling wrote:
> Right. I realize next a previous are conventions and that users may find
> the words familiar, but there may well be no context which gives a user
> coming into a page from a search engine any clue on what was previous
> (to the author) and what is next (again, to the author).
I think we may be muddling up different things, and criticising the one
for not being the other - when both can be valuable features of a page.
When anchor links are placed in context then the link text should, as a
matter of course, be the text that's appropriate to the context (it can
be very useful if the text "works" when taken out of context, for
example active text that says _full_technical_details_ is far more
effective than one that says _click_here_ for full technical details.
That's for the anchor links in context.
It can _also_ be useful to have a little navigation area - at the end,
or at the start, or both - that reflects the author's view of the
site's structure, giving links to, as appropriate, the site's home,
the topic's entry page, "up", "next" or whatever makes sense to the
author. That should never be the _only_ links on the page, but I do
feel it can give the reader a sense of orientation to have them.
> Small comfort to
> know what the words are without having a bigger picture to have some hint
> about where the words will take me.
As always, circumstances differ! If there are lots of links on a page,
it might be useful to sumamrise them, as well as (or instead of) having
a bald Previous/Up/Next/Index/Home navigation. A decently designed
browser would summarise the available links with their texts for the
reader anyway, but there aren't many decently designed browsers around,
so authors have to be forever working around the browsers' lack of the
obvious conveniences. Sigh.
> There are many sites with, for example, tutorials, where you need to follow
> an order; often, however, there is no navigation hint on how to get to the
> index or table of contents -- just back and forward links. I'm faced with
> chopping pieces of the URL off to try to navigate "back" to the
> beginning. Having that link to the overview may be crucial for people to
> get useable information from a site.
Agreed, but a standard word or phrase, "Index" (or "Topic index" or
such) would surely suffice for navigation? You don't need a full
descriptive title "Index of Advanded Finagling Tutorial" or whatever, in
most cases, *at that point of the page*.
Veronica Karlsson
Mark Waterous wrote:
> HotSource wrote:
> >> Subject: Good sites with frames?
> >
> >cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
> >rare... VERY rare.
>
> Not true. I believe I make very good use of frames on my site
> (mainly due to the fact that you can't see the frames... another one
> of those 'seamless' pages, and also because its a very simple
> frameset),
When you create a user interface (e.g. a web page) you want to give the
user as much *power* as possible! You want to make the user feel that he
is in charge! You probably hate when the steering wheel in a car isn't
working properly, with the result that the car feels unstable, right? In
the same way users hate when they feel that they don't have control of
their situation. By removing the visible frame border and/or making it
"stiff" so it can't be moved (don't know the exact term) you are robbing
the user of some of this power. To have the border there, even if it
doesn't seem to make any sense, is simply _polite_ because you give the
users the _possibility_ to do it if, for some odd reason that you have
no way of predicting, they want to.
[ 8< ]
> Frames greatly help a page... if utilized properly. Sorry for
> the long-winded reply to this, its first thing in the morning, I just
> woke up, and have lots and lots of energy.... :)
>
I would say "Frames _can_ greatly help a page", not "Frames greatly help
a page", which could be interpreted to mean "Frames greatly help _any_
page" or even "Frames greatly help _all_ pages". [did that make sense to
anybody else?]
Tobias C. Brown
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 22:49:38 +0100, Veronica Karlsson
<dr...@on.spammer> wrote:
>Mark Waterous wrote:
>> HotSource wrote:
>> >Torbjoern Aarnes wrote:
>> >> Subject: Good sites with frames?
>> >
>> >That is an oxymoron. 'Good' and 'Frames' do not go together. In rare
>> >cases designers have effectively deployed the use of frames, but this is
>> >rare... VERY rare.
>>
>> Not true. I believe I make very good use of frames on my site
>> (mainly due to the fact that you can't see the frames... another one
>> of those 'seamless' pages, and also because its a very simple
>> frameset),
>
>When you create a user interface (e.g. a web page) you want to give the
>user as much *power* as possible! You want to make the user feel that he
>is in charge! You probably hate when the steering wheel in a car isn't
>working properly, with the result that the car feels unstable, right? In
>the same way users hate when they feel that they don't have control of
>their situation. By removing the visible frame border and/or making it
>"stiff" so it can't be moved (don't know the exact term) you are robbing
>the user of some of this power. To have the border there, even if it
>doesn't seem to make any sense, is simply _polite_ because you give the
>users the _possibility_ to do it if, for some odd reason that you have
>no way of predicting, they want to.
Borders showing or not, I've yet to seen anyone use Frames politely. I
admit that Frames often provide a nice navigational feature within a
site but the whole concept breaks down way too fast. For example, what
occurs when I open a Framed page inside a Framed page ... ? I can't
really tell you exactly what happens but I know I then feel trapped
inside a rat hole. Maybe there's a button in my browser that would
free me, give me Noframes or whatever. I don't know so, enlighten me.
I'd like to see an admirable use of Frames. Otherwise, I would say
Frames suck all of the time.
>[ 8< ]
>> Frames greatly help a page... if utilized properly. Sorry for
>> the long-winded reply to this, its first thing in the morning, I just
>> woke up, and have lots and lots of energy.... :)
>>
>
>I would say "Frames _can_ greatly help a page", not "Frames greatly help
>a page", which could be interpreted to mean "Frames greatly help _any_
>page" or even "Frames greatly help _all_ pages". [did that make sense to
>anybody else?]
Toby Brown <t...@pobox.com>
Dave Williams
In article <01bd0f0c$91d19e60$05eb...@earljr.columbus.rr.com>, "Earl W.
Phillips, Jr." <ea...@pdesign.net> wrote:
> goto www.pdesign.net; the closest thing you'll find to having both "good"
> and "frames" together. . .
Nope. If that were the case the NOFRAMES text would be something other than:
Also, the top frame was not only way too big, it had an animated GIF.
"Good" and "frames" can go a lot closer together than that. Just how close,
of course is subject to considerable debate (past, present and,
undoubtedly, future).
Toby Speight
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Phil> Phil Stripling <URL:mailto:phi...@what.civex.com>
> In <URL:news:w3q90td...@shell.tsoft.com>, Phil wrote:
Phil> Right. I realize next & previous are conventions and that
Phil> users may find the words familiar, but there may well be no
Phil> context which gives a user coming into a page from a search
Phil> engine any clue on what was previous (to the author) and what
Phil> is next (again, to the author). Small comfort to know what the
Phil> words are without having a bigger picture to have some hint
Phil> about where the words will take me.
Yes, agreed. I was focusing too much on your use of "back" (which -
conventionally - means something different to a reader than "previous")
to comment on your objection to unlabelled navigation links. Mainly
because I have no argument with you on the latter point. We end up
lost in hyperspace. Again.
Phil> It happens almost daily that I get to a page from "out of
Phil> nowhere," and find something interesting, with links at the
Phil> bottom for back, next, and home, and have no idea what the
Phil> series is. Back (or previous) and next tell me there's a
Phil> series, but not anything more.
"home" is another direction that has a conventional meaning to
readers. The papers I've seen[*] on link relationships discourage
the use of "home", "back" and "forward", reserving them for browser
internal functions (and even encouraging browser authors to ignore
such values). Authors ought to be encouraged to use the words "up"
and "top", in my opinion (these are the suggested values for the
link relationships).
[*] The expired "relrev" draft by Quin & Maloney, and its bastard son
in HTML 4.0, section 7.6
Phil> All I'd ask for is a hint -- If the title of Chapter 3 is
Phil> meaningful, then that is fine.
Yes, I wish more authors realised the importance of that, rather than
wasting their time with flashy gimmicks. I know which is more likely
to keep me reading a site, as opposed to leaving in frustration.
>> ... in many parts of [the hypertext] world they [Back, previous,
>> forward, and next] _are_ appropriate, and it makes sense to restrict
>> this discussion to that part.
Phil> ... Has this thread said it's restricted to the parts of the
Phil> world where back and next are appropriate? It has seemed more
Phil> general to me.
I only said it makes sense to me, neatly ignoring what other people
think ;-). *I've* ignored the cases where they are inappropriate, on
the grounds that the discussion can't possibly be contributing to such
design. But I haven't actually said so. Sorry.
Phil> There are many sites with, for example, tutorials, where you
Phil> need to follow an order; often, however, there is no navigation
Phil> hint on how to get to the index or table of contents -- just
Phil> back and forward links. I'm faced with chopping pieces of the
Phil> URL off to try to navigate "back" to the beginning. Having that
Phil> link to the overview may be crucial for people to get useable
Phil> information from a site.
Me too - I consider that very bad design. It's a crying shame that
too many "designers" think their work is about making things pretty,
rather than easy to use. (Not all designers, of course, so if Gil's
reading this, I don't want barbecuing!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNJ+bP+dsuUurvcRtAQFrXgL9EGYtcftrzOx8ly2jWqJS+sPeihjigNLp
lBFPvRrbaxYVvCFG/tFW4tRYaqKNNy2mV5wJ1TKAsgcwpdEcF8jfwAjiVFhV1CGX
XX5n9HDJZXWg6X9wS88polZ+gZBbYqfx
=uh5A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Williams
> Borders showing or not, I've yet to seen anyone use Frames politely. I
> admit that Frames often provide a nice navigational feature within a
> site but the whole concept breaks down way too fast. For example, what
> occurs when I open a Framed page inside a Framed page ... ? I can't
> really tell you exactly what happens but I know I then feel trapped
> inside a rat hole. Maybe there's a button in my browser that would
> free me, give me Noframes or whatever. I don't know so, enlighten me.
> I'd like to see an admirable use of Frames. Otherwise, I would say
> Frames suck all of the time.
At the risk of blowing my own horn, check out http://www.stardem.com/ (the
site I redesigned a year ago). For best results in testing its
capabilities, try it with image loading off, or with frames turned off. It
works pretty well any way you slice it (though it's not beautiful with
Lynx), and the menu frame is kept to a minimum, existing only to offer
speedy navigation.
It addresses the issues you mention pretty well (TARGET="_top" and all
that), although it should be noted that it took a lot more work than the
original, slower-loading, tabled version (which appears in the NOFRAMES
section).
I wouldn't be so immodest as to call it "an admirable use of Frames," but I
will say that, IMO, it doesn't suck.
P.S. There's a "button in my browser" (NS3.0) that allows me to
click-and-hold (probably right-click for Windows) in the frame and then
"open a new window with this frame." HTH
Alan J. Flavell
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Dave Williams wrote:
> At the risk of blowing my own horn, check out http://www.stardem.com/ (the
> site I redesigned a year ago). For best results in testing its
> capabilities, try it with image loading off, or with frames turned off. It
> works pretty well any way you slice it
What you say about turning off frames is fair enough, but apparently
someone with a frames-enabled browser (I guess I mean a
"noframes-disabled" browser?) doesn't get a choice. One can open the
main frame in a separate window, but then one loses the navigation aids
that you have, very properly, made available in the noframe version.
> (though it's not beautiful with Lynx),
You can fix one part of that by supplying the (mandatory in HTML4) ALT
attributes for all IMGs - in most cases where they are missing I suggest
ALT="" would be appropriate. (I would want to fix the other HTML errors
reported, too.) Apart from that, it looked serviceable enough in Lynx
to me. Is anything "beautiful" in Lynx? - only the images!
> and the menu frame is kept to a minimum, existing only to offer
> speedy navigation.
No complaints about its size, but as soon as you have frames at all,
you have their disadvantages, both in design and in implementation.
While it's true that in some situations they can be useful and aid
navigation, in other situations they are a damned nuisance. Whenever
I use them in my work, I always try to find a way to let readers have
a choice, e.g by offering them a link to a non-framed version.
> It addresses the issues you mention pretty well (TARGET="_top" and all
> that), although it should be noted that it took a lot more work than the
> original, slower-loading, tabled version (which appears in the NOFRAMES
> section).
I can't help feeling that one one's going to use frames, one really
needs an authoring technique that can create framed and non-framed
site versions in parallel, and keep them in step through the updates.
I'm very reluctant to design sites with frames, for that very reason,
although I do use rtftohtml for creating frames sites from large Word
documents (together with an unframed version of the same thing for
readers who prefer it - a matter of moments to produce with rtftohtml).
> P.S. There's a "button in my browser" (NS3.0) that allows me to
> click-and-hold (probably right-click for Windows) in the frame and then
> "open a new window with this frame."
Sure there is, but such a page usually lacks the navigation tools
(because the author had put those in a different frame). That's where
the option of going to an unframed version of the site can be valuable
to a reader whose browser doesn't give them that option.
m.a.d
Well, well, another one of those strong opinions! You hate Microsoft too,
right?
Listen up, my friend. If you know what you are doing, both when authoring
and when browsing, you *can* make productive use of frames in certain
situations. Linking 'out' of frame-structures is something you have to
learn really quickly when you are authoring. Using links within frames (and
how to make them load in a full window) should be one of the prerequisites
for everyone using the web.
It's these people who stifle progress....
regards.
m.a.d
>Borders showing or not, I've yet to seen anyone use Frames politely. I
>admit that Frames often provide a nice navigational feature within a
>site but the whole concept breaks down way too fast. For example, what
>occurs when I open a Framed page inside a Framed page ... ? I can't
>really tell you exactly what happens but I know I then feel trapped
>inside a rat hole. Maybe there's a button in my browser that would
>free me, give me Noframes or whatever. I don't know so, enlighten me.
>I'd like to see an admirable use of Frames. Otherwise, I would say
>Frames suck all of the time.
>
>Toby Brown <t...@pobox.com>
Mark Waterous
On 11 Dec 1997 18:17:48 GMT, tal...@bnr.ca (Dan Mcgarry) wrote:
>
>In article <348F6871...@ibm.net>, HotSource <hots...@ibm.net> writes:
>|> Jhary-a-Conel wrote:
>
>[frames don't work]
>
>|> > Um, yes they do. I would suggest, that you haven't seen framed sites
>|> > produced by good authors. As you've stated.
I hope people don't think my site 'sucks' because it has
frames... You can't even tell they are there, except for the
stationery background, etc.
>|> Which is most designers using frames, as I stated. I have yet to see a
>|> site that NEEDED frames, it is usually just a lazy webpage designer who
>|> doesn't want to put his/her Nav bar on every page. That is not a
>|> reason, nor an excuse to use frames.
Thats not laziness, its a good practice, I'll explain further
below...
>Actually, the best critiques of frames that I've come across mostly
>objected to the useability aspects, that is, to Netscape's implementation
>and support of them.
>
>Jakob Nielsen has a good report on "Why Frames Suck (Most of the Time)"
>on his site <URL:http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html>.
>
>You can lay many of the problems with frames squarely at the door of the
>company that was in too much of a hurry getting it done to do it right.
You can 'get it done right' by using frames, just as you can
by not using them. My site incorporates them to display a constant
logo, clock, and help button at the top of the screen. It also
contains basic information at the bottom of the page, which greatly
saves on space, and time spent putting it at the bottom of all pages.
I also utilize frames to make the background (3 simple 2000x10 gifs
that extends out on the page about 20 pixels, leaving the rest as
white space) look as though it comes down from the top of the page,
come to a clean end, and then resume at the bottom, where the main
page information ends. This causes no contrast on the page, and adds a
minimal styling cue, that I think spices up the page, but is simple.
>In and of themselves, frames are not entirely a bad idea....
No they are not. Its the fact that too many people do not know
how to use them, but react to it as a novelty item, and feel the need
to put those frames up. Because they do not know how to fully
implement them in a good way, their pages end up looking worse, or in
the rare instance, they get lucky.
My suggestion to anyone wishing to put frames on their page,
is to check out some sites that contain tutorials on frames, and
compare them with other tutorials, and examples.
>--
>Dan McGarry
-------------------
Mark Waterous
thepl...@geocities.com
I am © 1997, by me.
-------------------
Berry Sizemore
> >> Those link are certainly useful. The name however can lead to some
> >> confusion. "Back" and "Forward" are usually terms we associate with
>
> >> moving through the visited pages history. The links from page 2 to
> >> pages 1 and 3 are more often called "Previous" and "Next".
>
> relative
> Phil> to _my_ previous.
>
> True, but they *are* the established convention, so it's only fair to
> users not to give them something unfamiliar.
That would be a heirarchy.
And earlier in this thread, someone said, that web sites aren't really
heirarchical. I disagree, and to speak to my point:
Network Magazine
Jan 1998
Vol.13 No.1
In the APPLICATIONS column
"Searching for the Right Engine"
by Robert Richardson
on page 70&71
subsection Anatomy of a search button
2nd paragraph
"Another angle is to use a "spider," which traverses the hierarchy..."
3rd paragraph
"The spider follows links, so anything that's added to your site--at
least that's linked in some way to the main site hierachy--will be
indexed..."
(end of quoting)
My point is, back and forward are relevant (as are next a previous)
since sites are heirarchical.
Thank you. **plonk**
Alan J. Flavell
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Mark Waterous wrote:
> I hope people don't think my site 'sucks' because it has
> frames... You can't even tell they are there,
Betch'a.
You'll learn more as you read the discussions here. It's not as if
the issue hasn't been hammered out before. (www.dejanews.com could
help).
> You can 'get it done right' by using frames, just as you can
> by not using them. My site incorporates them to display a constant
> logo, clock, and help button at the top of the screen.
Can't. It doesn't matter _why_ you use them, _how_ you use them, how
hard you try to conceal them: once you start using frames you take on
all the limitations of the poor underlying design and the poor
implementation in actual browsers.
> It also
> contains basic information at the bottom of the page, which greatly
> saves on space, and time spent putting it at the bottom of all pages.
Yes, yes, yes, give yourself a pat on the back for great design, but
none of this addresses the fundamental problems.
> Its the fact that too many people do not know
> how to use them, but react to it as a novelty item, and feel the need
> to put those frames up.
That's a fact of any HTML authoring, with or without frames.
> Because they do not know how to fully
> implement them in a good way, their pages end up looking worse, or in
> the rare instance, they get lucky.
OK, tell me, for example:
1. How to bookmark a particular frame configuration
2. How to surf a frames site with images off until I find what
I'm looking for, and then at a click of a button get all the images
loaded in all of the frames. You'd better assume I'm using the world's
currently favourite browser/version.
That's one example (of many) of a defect in the underlying design, and
one example (of many) of inadequate implementation in the popular
browsers.
> My suggestion to anyone wishing to put frames on their page,
> is to check out some sites that contain tutorials on frames,
Would I be allowed to validate the HTML of those tutorials?
> compare them with other tutorials, and examples.
The WDG at www.htmlhelp.com has the best frames tutorials that I have
found. They are by "Galactus", whose private opinion seems to be that
frames were spawned from the sewers of Hell. He does a neat job of
explaining how to use them, in spite of that.
Warren Steel
Mark Waterous wrote:
> I hope people don't think my site 'sucks' because it has
> frames... You can't even tell they are there, except for the
> stationery background, etc.
You haven't given a URL, so I guess we'll never know.
But if you mean you have some kind of "invisible frames,"
then that's inconvenient for the user, who can't tell
which frame is "active" and scrollable at a given moment.
> You can 'get it done right' by using frames, just as you can
> by not using them. My site incorporates them to display a constant
> logo, clock, and help button at the top of the screen.
Now why would I want to devote part of my screen
*persistently* to your logo, while reading your work?!
And why would I want to see a clock, when I have one
on the wall and on my desktop?
> It also
> contains basic information at the bottom of the page, which greatly
> saves on space, and time spent putting it at the bottom of all pages.
Now why would I want to see that information *persistently*
while viewing other information on your site?
> >In and of themselves, frames are not entirely a bad idea....
> No they are not. Its the fact that too many people do not know
> how to use them, but react to it as a novelty item, and feel the need
> to put those frames up. Because they do not know how to fully
> implement them in a good way, their pages end up looking worse, or in
> the rare instance, they get lucky.
The flaws in the FRAMESET concept do not stem from their
appearance, which is a matter of taste. Appearance, however,
is the reason that some authors are tempted to remove scrollbars,
making the site unusable on some displays. The flaws in frames
come from their procrustean inflexibility, their breaking of
the WWW model of unique addressing, and their conceptual
emptiness, in which the relationships between documents are
defined not by their meaning but by some pretended concept
of visual layout.
> There are numerous ways from my site to load the main content
>frame into the full window, and in every file on my site I have a
>javascript to detect if this has been done. If it has been, then the
>javascript inserts the logo, clock, and help button at the top of each
>page, so the page looks normal.
Wait a minute? I thought javascript was a client-side
scripting language! If I have disabled javascript, how will
it insert all that clutter on my display?
Liam Quinn
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:02:07 GMT, "m.a.d"
<mado...@bechtel.comSPAMFREE> wrote:
>Listen up, my friend. If you know what you are doing, both when authoring
>and when browsing, you *can* make productive use of frames in certain
>situations. Linking 'out' of frame-structures is something you have to
>learn really quickly when you are authoring. Using links within frames (and
>how to make them load in a full window) should be one of the prerequisites
>for everyone using the web.
>
>It's these people who stifle progress....
Are you suggesting that frames are progress?
--
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/