Where is the data on frames preference?
s...@anv.net
I have read many times here that many people do not prefer using
frames. This is in a group where people program html. What about the
browsers? Where is this data that says browsers do not prefer frames?
Who are these people? No one asked me. Most people I talk to like
frames if they are used correctly. This is a tool that can be very
useful. For instance, on my page , I want the menu visible wherever
the person is on the pages, no matter where they have scrolled to.
Suggest a way to do that without frames and I will use it. It is not
possible as far as I've seen. Tables? They scroll with the rest of
the page. Imagemaps? Same thing. All I've seen here are a bunch of
people stating what are supposed to be facts about the browser
population, without backing up these facts. I like the way people use
frames. Considering the major browsers use frams, Netscape, MSIE, and
now AOL, what is the problem?
Mark Jones
s...@anv.net wrote in article <53m5tl$7...@raven.eva.net>...
The major problem with frames is what happens when a search engine
finds your web site and catalogs pages that are part of a frame.
Since the frame structure is generated by the primary web page,
all of these internal pages may not even know or care that they are
running in a frame. The person who clicks on a link in a search
engine may end up directly on one of these pages and not have
any means to navigate the site. Every page you create should provide
some method to reload the home page if you want to avoid this.
Even this won't solve all of the problems, but it may help a little.
Mark Jones
Henry Churchyard
I have no data, except on my own preference, namely:
I HATE FRAMES!!!!!
1) Because they take up precious screen real estate. Maybe this is an
odd personal fetish of mine, but when seriously _reading_ text (as
opposed to quickly scanning and clicking), I like to have a large file
display window, and this is impossible when there's a wide menu strip
on one side, a large non-functional logo header at the top, and a large
non-functional ego-boost footer at the bottom. Several times when I
have been reading articles on the http://www.salon1999.com/ site (for
example), I have gone through various contortions in order to make an
article fill up the _whole_ browser window.
2) Because frames are actively hostile to non-frames-aware browsers,
including (but by no means restricted to) Lynx. The <FRAMES>
construct does not degrade gracefully in non-frames-aware browsers ,
but requires the web-page author to do the additional work of
maintaining a whole separate <NOFRAMES> section. And unless the
web-maintainer is very careful, inevitably the two will fall out of
sync...
In article <53m5tl$7...@raven.eva.net>, <s...@anv.net> wrote:
> Frames can be very useful. For instance, on my page , I want the
> menu visible wherever the person is on the pages, no matter where
> they have scrolled to.
One question: why? When I want to look at your menu, I'd rather just
scroll to the top or the bottom of the page. What I don't want is your
menu taking up space on the screen at moments when I don't need or want
it. One of those sidebars with niggardly amounts of squished-in text,
or (even worse) a column of enigmatic guess-provoking icons, doesn't
really take the place of a genuine fully-functional table of contents
anyway; I would advise you to devote your navigational efforts to
producing such a full table of contents.
Here's the URL of an anti-frames graphic, for free incorporation into
people's web-pages:
<URL:http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/noframes.gif>
For some alternative variants, see near the end of web-page
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/htnimglt.html
And also see http://www.websight.com/current/usecool/usecool.htm
--
Henry Churchyard || "...equal to 2800 pounds, 19 shillings, and elevenpence
three farthings, as nearly as can be expressed in English money, the Aphanian
currency being a complex decimal coinage which would take too long to explain"
- Tom Hood, _Petsetilla's Posy_ (1870) http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
Callie
chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) wrote:
>I have no data, except on my own preference, namely:
> I HATE FRAMES!!!!!
Totally agree!
>In article <53m5tl$7...@raven.eva.net>, <s...@anv.net> wrote:
>> Frames can be very useful. For instance, on my page , I want the
>> menu visible wherever the person is on the pages, no matter where
>> they have scrolled to.
And what if the reader isn't using a browser that doesn't do
frames?
There two spots the reader can reach with a couple of
keystrokes: CRTL HOME takes me to the top, CTRL END takes me to
the bottom, on every browser I've tried for WinDOZE. Put the
menus at either place (mine are always at the bottom) and the
reader will be able to navigate easily without the need for
wasting space.
>And also see http://www.websight.com/current/usecool/usecool.htm
Henry .... shame on you! (rofl)
Callie
Cal...@writepage.com | Captain, HTML Police
http://www.writepage.com | Keeper of the HTML Flame
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <01bbb7a6$de02cc00$21cd...@chevy.sound.net>,
"Mark Jones" <ch...@sound.net> wrote:
> The major problem with frames is what happens when a search engine
> finds your web site and catalogs pages that are part of a frame.
Is there any evidence that search engines (ok, their robots) actually
_follow_ FRAME SRC links? As far as I know they only index documents
that are referenced with the normal <A HREF> tag, and they don't
handle frames at all.
There are so many "Sorry, this site requires a frame capable
browser" descriptions in Altavista.
Galactus
- --
E-mail: gala...@htmlhelp.com .................... PGP Key: 512/63B0E665
Maintainer of WDG's HTML reference: <http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/>
-----END PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Grinch
Henry Churchyard <chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote in article
<53n7fl$5...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>...
> I have gone through various contortions in order to make an
> article fill up the _whole_ browser window.
Contortions? Having to adjust an ill-considered frame setup is irritating,
I agree, but it's an exaggeration to call it "various contortions," I
think. It takes a couple of flicks of the mouse, a few seconds at most.
> requires the web-page author to do the additional work of
> maintaining a whole separate <NOFRAMES> section. And unless the
> web-maintainer is very careful, inevitably the two will fall out of
> sync...
Again, I think you're overestimating the case quite a bit. It's a fairly
simple matter to set things up using server side includes, so that the text
within the <noframes> section and the text in the document pointed to by
<frame src="foo"> is actually contained in a single document.
It's not difficult to set up at all, and can't fall out of sync, since
there's only one actual copy of the text.
Just my $.02...
-grinch
s...@anv.net
I have not heard any data. I have heard a couple of people say they
hate frames.
cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
>chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) wrote:
>>I have no data, except on my own preference, namely:
>> I HATE FRAMES!!!!!
>Totally agree!
Why not?
>>In article <53m5tl$7...@raven.eva.net>, <s...@anv.net> wrote:
>>> Frames can be very useful. For instance, on my page , I want the
>>> menu visible wherever the person is on the pages, no matter where
>>> they have scrolled to.
> And what if the reader isn't using a browser that doesn't do
>frames?
Then I guess they don't get the full benefit of the site.
> There two spots the reader can reach with a couple of
>keystrokes: CRTL HOME takes me to the top, CTRL END takes me to
>the bottom, on every browser I've tried for WinDOZE. Put the
>menus at either place (mine are always at the bottom) and the
>reader will be able to navigate easily without the need for
>wasting space.
Wasting space? How? Are you browsing at 640x480? Even then, how is
the space wasted? You have a menu. In the window you are reading
this message in you probably have a menu. Is that a waste of space?
I have a menu and a button bar in my newsreader and I don't think the
space is wasted. So what is the problem with a menu? The fact is, no
matter what the site looks like, people will use it if you have
something they want.
>>And also see http://www.websight.com/current/usecool/usecool.htm
> Henry .... shame on you! (rofl)
I don't use frames because it is the latest thing. There are many
things I find useless and I do not use them. I use them for
convenience. It makes my site manageable and organized. I could
certainly create a similar site without frames, but why?
As for people I program for, if they want frames, I give them frames.
If not, I don't. My web site displays most of the html, cgi, and java
I can do. This is so that people can see what can be done.
I have read many messages complaining about frames, and I have heard
not one valid argument why they should not be used. I agree with the
noframes thing, if you want to make your site available to those using
substandard browsers. But I have heard nothing stating a valid reason
not to include them at all.
You know, almost every browser now uses frames on the Windows
platform. Even the AOL browser. The only ones that don't are Mosaic.
Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
I think things like frames show progress in the way a site can be
organized. Some people do not like progress.
Next you will hear people saying "Those darn high speed connections, I
don't think we need them. We like slow connections to the Internet.
We get that warm fuzzy feeling with our modem, even though it is
slow."
Alan J. Flavell
On 11 Oct 1996, Henry Churchyard wrote:
> I have no data, except on my own preference, namely:
>
> I HATE FRAMES!!!!!
In most cases I agree. Only rarely have I found the use of frames was
a positive benefit to the reader. Even if I try to discount the various
shortcomings of actual browser implementations of the things, I reckon
they have too many disadvantages for the reader. I suppose they get
used so much because they seem to give the author more control over
what the reader is doing.
> 2) Because frames are actively hostile to non-frames-aware browsers,
> including (but by no means restricted to) Lynx.
Oh, current versions of Lynx _are_ "frames-aware", but in a way that
leads to some interesting nonsequiturs from authors, e.g statements
like "great, you are fortunate to have a frames-aware browser, so just
click on the green image...".
But on browser/versions that really are frames non-aware, all too many
authors seem to be able to think of nothing better than to prepare a
"get a better browser, sucker" slogan. I already _have_ a better
browser, thank you; I've told it to disable frames.
TimBL's authoring style advice said "don't mention the mechanics". How
perceptive that was, in so many different contexts! As soon as I see
authors offering instructions on how to use their site, it tells me that
the site has not been properly designed. Unless this is a tutorial in
how to use one's browser, a WWW site should just be seamlessly navigable
using familiar features of each reader's chosen browser. Any mention of
browser mechanics is a distraction from the topic (and likely to be
actively misleading to someone who uses a different browser). Oh,
sorry, I'm preaching to the converted again, I guess.
> The <FRAMES>
> construct does not degrade gracefully in non-frames-aware browsers ,
> but requires the web-page author to do the additional work of
> maintaining a whole separate <NOFRAMES> section. And unless the
> web-maintainer is very careful, inevitably the two will fall out of
> sync...
Many of the straightforward applications of frames could perfectly well
have been achieved with the HTML3.0 <BANNER>, which degrades just fine
on browsers that don't implement it. Other uses would be better
achieved by implementing the <LINK> construct, that was present already
in HTML2.0. But of course implementing the standard would promote
document portability, always a problem for vendors who are trying to
lock people into their product.
> One question: why? When I want to look at your menu, I'd rather just
> scroll to the top or the bottom of the page. What I don't want is your
> menu taking up space on the screen at moments when I don't need or want
> it. One of those sidebars with niggardly amounts of squished-in text,
> or (even worse) a column of enigmatic guess-provoking icons, doesn't
> really take the place of a genuine fully-functional table of contents
> anyway; I would advise you to devote your navigational efforts to
> producing such a full table of contents.
I feel the urge to repeat my call for an Overview mode in browsers.
Even the word processor on my little palmtop has an overview mode (i.e
displays just the headlines so that I can navigate to the section I
want); obviously as an HTML author I _can_ engineer a table of contents
at the head of my document, with internal anchors to each section, and
indeed many HTML-generating tools do this (rtftohtml, latex2html etc.)
but I still don't see why this couldn't be a function implemented in the
browser. All the required information about the document is already
there (Hn tags etc), all it needs is a bit of browser design work to
exploit the markup that's there. Today's HTML presentation agents are
really very pedestrian, no matter what other glitzy facilities they may
have tacked on at the side.
> And also see http://www.websight.com/current/usecool/usecool.htm
"404 Object Not Found".
Callie seemed to think it was good. What am I missing?
cheers
Alan J. Flavell
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 s...@anv.net wrote:
> Wasting space? How? Are you browsing at 640x480? Even then, how is
> the space wasted?
Here we go again: if in doubt, harangue your readers, tell them they
gotta download yet another browser or plugin, or maximise their browser
window, get a bigger and better peecee, or whatever.
The standard netscape window is around 460 pixels wide, isn't it?
I've nothing against anyone changing that, if they want. I find
normal WWW pages more comfortable to read if I narrow it a bit more,
and that also leaves more room for my MBone video window etc. But
I've no objection to readers who maximise their window, or choose a
giant font, or project the thing onto the ceiling for all that I care;
what I _do_ object to is authors who think it appropriate to prescribe
the reader's viewing environment without there being any evident
technical reason for them doing so, and I object even more if they
harangue me for having my own opinions on the matter.
> I have read many messages complaining about frames, and I have heard
> not one valid argument why they should not be used.
So, a reader's tastes, desires and opinions are not valid, in your
scheme of things. For shame!
> You know, almost every browser now uses frames on the Windows
> platform. Even the AOL browser. The only ones that don't are Mosaic.
Your knowledge of browsers seems somewhat limited. Even frames-capable
browsers can have a user option to turn it off, you know.
> Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
> or old browser, they should upgrade.
You don't see the contradiction, do you.
> It is free you know.
No, it isn't. Except for those who qualify.
> Some people do not like progress.
Netscape, for example. How much of HTML3.0 did they implement? Have
they even caught up with HTML2.0 yet? They have not.
Stephen Traub
s...@anv.net wrote:
>You know, almost every browser now uses frames on the Windows
>platform.
Even the AOL browser.
The AOL Mac browser doesn't!
>The only ones that don't are Mosaic.
How about the IBM browser? And of course there are others that don't. Win
3.x MS IE 2.0 doesn't support frames and MS IE 3.0 in its official version
for Win 3.x users is not available.
>Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>or old browser, they should upgrade.
>It is free you know.
Where can *I* get it for free -- unless I steal it? It is not free for me
and many people -- unless we use it illegally. Is that what you are
advocating?
Even as we speak, 15% (http://www.inect.co.uk/int0029.html) of all Netscape
users are still using versions below 2.0 which don't support frames. And
some have compelling reasons to stay with these browsers (not all of which
are just the added cost of a browser upgrade).
Not arguing your point, just your facts,
Steve
--
Web Page Re<p>air - We Repair, Revise, and Maintain Web
Pages in order to widen your site's audience.
http://www.shore.net/~straub/wpr.htm
|| Property Valuation Advisors - Commercial Real Estate
Appraisal http://www.shore.net/~straub/
Ben Turner
chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) wrote:
> I HATE FRAMES!!!!!
There is still a large group of people who think web sites aren't high
tech unless they use frames. For instance, I'm currently wasting my
time playing a game called The Realm ( http://www.realmserver.com/ )
and most of the players' sites implement frames...badly. But they
insist their site is "cool" because they use frames.
> Here's the URL of an anti-frames graphic, for free incorporation into
> people's web-pages:
Oh give me a break. Is this really necessary? Just another useless
graphic I have to download.
Dixi,
B.
"Sive iubes seu votas, hoc facio."
Ben Turner ( infi...@mail.utexas.edu )
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~infinity/
Callie
s...@anv.net wrote:
>I have not heard any data. I have heard a couple of people say they
>hate frames.
>cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
>>chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) wrote:
>>>I have no data, except on my own preference, namely:
>>> I HATE FRAMES!!!!!
>>Totally agree!
>Why not?
I have seen very few sites where frames actually contributed to
the ease of use, and a large number where the frames blocked
my using the site.
>Wasting space? How? Are you browsing at 640x480?
It varies
The screen on my palm-top, which I use when out on my yacht,
is quite tiny. And the one on the cell-phone in the limo, with
the "talk-to-the-Web" feature, is non existent. And the one in
the ski cabin at Vail is my old NEC greyscale on a '286.
The 25" monitor on the Sun, the one with the Targa board and
the ISDN line, isn't exactly portable. Security raises such a
stink when people try to take workstations home.
>You know, almost every browser now uses frames on the Windows
>platform. Even the AOL browser. The only ones that don't are Mosaic.
>Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
And what browser can I run on my cellphone (it's the LATEST
technology) that runs frames? What browser can I run on the '286
that does frames? It's more than just getting a free browser!
There is a tremendous amount of OLD computer equipment being
resold and passed on to others.
Henry Churchyard
In article <53o9ti$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
>>And also see http://www.websight.com/current/usecool/usecool.htm
> Henry .... shame on you! (rofl)
Ok, ok, I left off the $#@%&* "l":
http://www.websight.com/current/usecool/usecool.html
^
--
"His name is Henry, a proof how unequally the gifts of fortune are bestowed."
-Jane Austen, 10/14/1813 || Henry Churchyard http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <53q8rc$e...@raven.eva.net>, s...@anv.net wrote:
> cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
> >menus at either place (mine are always at the bottom) and the
> >reader will be able to navigate easily without the need for
> >wasting space.
> Wasting space? How? Are you browsing at 640x480? Even then, how is
Well, that's a common Windows configuration. But even if people have
larger windows, they might not use their browser in full-screen
mode. I am normally doing other things when I am browsing the Web,
so I need other windows open as well.
> the space wasted? You have a menu. In the window you are reading
> this message in you probably have a menu. Is that a waste of space?
Depends. The menus over here are usually one line, and not a few
hundred pixels with images in them.
> I have a menu and a button bar in my newsreader and I don't think the
> space is wasted. So what is the problem with a menu? The fact is, no
The most important problem is that it's too big for its purpose. And
it's not just menus - there are lots of sites which use frames to
hold an advertisement or other static information. That's certainly
a waste of space.
> matter what the site looks like, people will use it if you have
> something they want.
Yes sure, but does that really justify doing it without consideration
for your users? It seems to me that it's your job to make life easier
for your users, not for yourself.
> Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
> or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
Netscape isn't free, unless you're a student or government. Of course
you get an unlimited time to evaluate it, but that's cheating..
> I think things like frames show progress in the way a site can be
> organized. Some people do not like progress.
I think you're missing the point. Frames are not necessarily progress,
since they do not work well on browsers that do not support it.
> Next you will hear people saying "Those darn high speed connections, I
> don't think we need them. We like slow connections to the Internet.
> We get that warm fuzzy feeling with our modem, even though it is
> slow."
I *really* think you're missing the point. A site still works if your
connection is slow, so if you want to use 2400bps, be my guest. But
if I disable frames (courtesy of your favourite hex editor) then I
can't use the site at all.
DJ Delorie
gala...@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) writes:
> > Wasting space? How? Are you browsing at 640x480? Even then, how is
>
> Well, that's a common Windows configuration. But even if people have
> larger windows, they might not use their browser in full-screen
> mode. I am normally doing other things when I am browsing the Web,
> so I need other windows open as well.
An associate and I were talking about a multi-frame page he was
working on (we agreed that the format was appropriate). I commented
that one of the frames, which was multi-column, had too-thin columns
and that he should try viewing it at 14 point to see how it looks on
my screen. He claimed that he checked a range of fonts, and when he
checked his fonts they *were* 14 point. Well, I said, I only use half
the screen - maybe his window was bigger. No, he takes that into
consideration and his window was only 640 pixels wide. Why the
difference? Turns out his display was set for 75 DPI and mine was set
to 100 DPI, so my 14-point font was larger than his.
The moral of the story is that you can *never* assume that you know
what your viewer's screen will look like.
s...@anv.net
gala...@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) wrote:
>The most important problem is that it's too big for its purpose. And
>it's not just menus - there are lots of sites which use frames to
>hold an advertisement or other static information. That's certainly
>a waste of space.
I am not concerned with those sites. I am addressing those who make
sweeping statements such as "frames are bad". There are appropriate
uses and many misuses.
>Yes sure, but does that really justify doing it without consideration
>for your users? It seems to me that it's your job to make life easier
>for your users, not for yourself.
No, my job is to get information on the web. If the target audience
largely uses a frames capable browser, and if the person paying me
wants frames, that's what they get. I am not concerned with
addressing the relatively small number of no frames people. And I am
assuming they are a small number, since I started this thread to get
solid data, and still have none.
>> Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>> or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
>Netscape isn't free, unless you're a student or government. Of course
>you get an unlimited time to evaluate it, but that's cheating..
Internet Explorer is free, and some would say it is superior.
>> I think things like frames show progress in the way a site can be
>> organized. Some people do not like progress.
>I think you're missing the point. Frames are not necessarily progress,
>since they do not work well on browsers that do not support it.
Not necessarily. I think most would agree that DAT or CDs indicate
progress in many ways, even if you have to use a particular tool to
play them.
>> Next you will hear people saying "Those darn high speed connections, I
>> don't think we need them. We like slow connections to the Internet.
>> We get that warm fuzzy feeling with our modem, even though it is
>> slow."
>I *really* think you're missing the point. A site still works if your
>connection is slow, so if you want to use 2400bps, be my guest. But
>if I disable frames (courtesy of your favourite hex editor) then I
>can't use the site at all.
I think you were missing my point. I was merely stating that some
people do not like progress because it means they must learn something
new.
Waiting for data...
Diane Wilson
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.961013...@hpplus05.cern.ch>, "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> writes:
|> TimBL's authoring style advice said "don't mention the mechanics". How
|> perceptive that was, in so many different contexts! As soon as I see
|> authors offering instructions on how to use their site, it tells me that
|> the site has not been properly designed. Unless this is a tutorial in
|> how to use one's browser, a WWW site should just be seamlessly navigable
|> using familiar features of each reader's chosen browser. Any mention of
|> browser mechanics is a distraction from the topic (and likely to be
|> actively misleading to someone who uses a different browser). Oh,
|> sorry, I'm preaching to the converted again, I guess.
Just to be irreverant, I have seen one "instruction page" that is an
absolute jewel. Go to Meta's home page ( http://pobox.com/~meta/ )
and read his "instructions for using this home page" page. You won't
regret it.
--
Diane Wilson, gender refusnik | DUTY, n. That which sternly impels us
dia...@mindspring.com | in the direction of profit, along the
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | line of desire.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ | --Ambrose Bierce
Christopher Davis
AE> == gala...@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) wrote:
sww> == sww <s...@anv.net>
sww> I am addressing those who make sweeping statements such as "frames
sww> are bad". There are appropriate uses and many misuses.
However, it seems that the appropriate uses are few and the inappropriate
ones are many. Even Netscape's home page no longer uses frames! The vast
amount of misuse of <BLINK> caused many of us to turn it off, thereby
cutting out the few sites that did use it appropriately; I suspect that
the same thing is starting to happen with frames.
sww> No, my job is to get information on the web. If the target audience
sww> largely uses a frames capable browser, and if the person paying me
sww> wants frames, that's what they get.
Back to the "target audience" thing again (sigh). Let's say I'm your
target audience: I recommend/authorize purchases for my company, etc.
Do I have a frames-capable browser? *Sometimes.*
At work? No, because I edited Netscape 3.0 to get rid of frames.
At home? Yes, because I haven't edited the Mac 2.02 yet.
At a conference? No, because Netscape 1.12 works better on a Powerbook 170.
On the go? No, because there isn't one on the HP200LX (unless you count
Lynx via terminal emulation).
sww> I am not concerned with addressing the relatively small number of no
sww> frames people. And I am assuming they are a small number, since I
sww> started this thread to get solid data, and still have none.
Am I a "no frames person" or not? Maybe I'm only 3/5ths of one.
sww> Internet Explorer is free, and some would say it is superior.
It's hard for it to be superior on OSes it doesn't run on (BSD/OS) or
isn't up to date on (Mac OS).
sww> I think you were missing my point. I was merely stating that some
sww> people do not like progress because it means they must learn
sww> something new.
I don't like frames because they're generally used badly and they're
broken as designed (see the discussion of how "NOFRAMES" works, or
doesn't, in another thread).
I *like* learning new things, especially when they're improvements on
older things. Frames don't make that goal.
--
Christopher Davis <c...@kei.com> <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/ >
"I conclude that the CDA is unconstitutional and that the First Amendment
denies Congress the power to regulate protected speech on the Internet."
-- Judge Stewart Dalzell in _ACLU v. Reno_
Abigail
s...@anv.net wrote:
>
> I have not heard any data. I have heard a couple of people say they
> hate frames.
My biggest peeve against frames is that they are not addressable.
Sure, you can get the URL of the pages which sets up the initial
frames, and the URL of the separate pages.
But suppose you go to a page which sets up a frame work with documents
A, B and C. A few clicks later, the site has changed to be using
documents D, E, F and G (one of the frames split). Now, can you give
me the URL of that?
Furthermore, most framed pages waste a lot of space. Continuously
showing
an index or toolbar I'm not interested in. Or worse, showing some dumb
logo or ad.
Abigail
Frank Condron
I've never had frames on my site (Frank's Windows Page,
http://www.conitech.com/windows/), and every single time I ask in my
discussion groups if I should use them, I'm overwhelmed by the number of
people that tell me not to.
I haven't kept numbers, but I would easily bet that I get 20 "Don't use
frames" responses for every "Yeah, use frames" response.
I've recently recoded my main page with a 'menu table' running down the
left side - perfect candidate for a frame, but I'm leary of using one
because of the above.
s...@anv.net
>Yes sure, but does that really justify doing it without consideration
>for your users? It seems to me that it's your job to make life easier
>for your users, not for yourself.
would much rather throw a couple of graphics together, make a table
and an imagemap. I have done this. Not all my sites have frames.
mathew
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.961013...@hpplus05.cern.ch>,
Alan J. Flavell <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>I feel the urge to repeat my call for an Overview mode in browsers.
I've suggested this to the developers of Mac Internet Explorer. It would be
cool if you could have those little twirly triangle things next to headings,
and could collapse and expand what was below each heading level. Lotus
Notes R4 has a facility like this; you can expand and collapse sections of
a document. Since Notes R4 is also a web browser, maybe Lotus will
implement overview mode for web documents.
I don't know whether the MSIE team will implement it, but I'm hopeful; after
all, they implemented the "disable frames" option I suggested :-)
mathew
--
me...@pobox.com content available at <URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/>
Help prevent bias on the net; see <URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/rs/ot/>
"There's safety in numbers... Large prime numbers." -- John Gilmore
mathew
In article <53sn6q$d...@raven.eva.net>, <s...@anv.net> wrote:
>No, my job is to get information on the web. If the target audience
>addressing the relatively small number of no frames people. And I am
>assuming they are a small number, since I started this thread to get
>solid data, and still have none.
Try <URL:http://www.webweek.com/96Jun03/news/frame.html>.
The article's conclusions are quite clear. 90% of the people whose browsers
*can* show frames, hate them -- and either turn them off or pick frameless
pages in preference to ones with frames.
Add in all the people who *can't* view frames, and the moral is obvious.
>>Netscape isn't free, unless you're a student or government. Of course
>>you get an unlimited time to evaluate it, but that's cheating..
>Internet Explorer is free, and some would say it is superior.
And it doesn't run on UNIX, and it allows you to switch off frames -- so we
can assume (from the survey referenced above) that 90% of the people running
it will do so.
s...@anv.net
article by someone who does no like frames.
>The article's conclusions are quite clear. 90% of the people whose browsers
>*can* show frames, hate them -- and either turn them off or pick frameless
>pages in preference to ones with frames.
Where is this data? I need data like who was surveyed, how they were
recruited, was the survey made available to the public, and
demographics.
There are some here who do not like frames. Not many. Definitely not
enough to make no frames a standard.
Mark Mauerman
Henry Churchyard wrote:
>
> I have no data, except on my own preference, namely:
>
> I HATE FRAMES!!!!!
Yoiur opinion.
>
> 1) Because they take up precious screen real estate. Maybe this is an
> odd personal fetish of mine, but when seriously _reading_ text (as
> opposed to quickly scanning and clicking), I like to have a large file
> display window, and this is impossible when there's a wide menu strip
> on one side, a large non-functional logo header at the top, and a large
> non-functional ego-boost footer at the bottom.
I'd say that maybe the sites you've visited were either poorly designed
or maybe were rather wasteful with frames
> Several times when I
> have been reading articles on the http://www.salon1999.com/ site (for
> example), I have gone through various contortions in order to make an
> article fill up the _whole_ browser window.
>
> 2) Because frames are actively hostile to non-frames-aware browsers,
> including (but by no means restricted to) Lynx. The <FRAMES>
> construct does not degrade gracefully in non-frames-aware browsers ,
> but requires the web-page author to do the additional work of
> maintaining a whole separate <NOFRAMES> section. And unless the
> web-maintainer is very careful, inevitably the two will fall out of
> sync...
>
This has to do with the author of the site has the vision he has for his
site. When Mercedes builds cars I don't think they have in mind what
the person that earns $24,000 / year would like to see in a car, do
they? Same is true with sites, software, and life in general these
days. Those still using Betamax players are finding that it's difficult
to rent movies. But should Blockbuster still carry Betamax movies
because two families in their city still haven't clued in to the fact
that VHS has come, CD-V technology is just around the corner, laser-disc
has been out for several years, etc.? I don't think so. People using
Lynx should expect that there will be things that they will just never
see on the internet. I think it would be a sad day if all pages were
designed with Lynx browsers in mind. Should we tell these people what
they are missing? Yes. Try and keep them informed? Yes. Design our
work around dated browsers? No.
> In article <53m5tl$7...@raven.eva.net>, <s...@anv.net> wrote:
> > Frames can be very useful. For instance, on my page , I want the
> > menu visible wherever the person is on the pages, no matter where
> > they have scrolled to.
>
> One question: why? When I want to look at your menu, I'd rather just
> scroll to the top or the bottom of the page. What I don't want is your
> menu taking up space on the screen at moments when I don't need or want
I call this wasted scrolling time. Most people generally don't take the
time to scroll. They want to find what they are looking for
immediately. No waiting. Why do you thing channel surfing is so
rampant. I tune into a station and if I don't like what I see
immediately...it's gone! I don't wait (or scroll) until something comes
on that I like. I'm already on another channel that has it. Frames, if
used properly are great for organizing a site. True, they're not for
everyone or every site, but they're here to stay. So stop complaining
or you'll be like the guy down the street with his Betamax player
bragging how Betamax is so superior yet he has nothing to watch!
> it. One of those sidebars with niggardly amounts of squished-in text,
> or (even worse) a column of enigmatic guess-provoking icons, doesn't
> really take the place of a genuine fully-functional table of contents
> anyway; I would advise you to devote your navigational efforts to
> producing such a full table of contents.
>
Design, design, design!
--
Mark Mauerman
Digimation, Inc
150 James Dr. East #140
St. Rose, Louisiana 70087
v. 800.854.4496
v. 504.468.7898
f. 504.468.5494
http://www.digimation.com
Daniel 'Ford' Sohl
s...@anv.net wrote:
: gala...@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) wrote:
:
: >I think you're missing the point. Frames are not necessarily progress,
: >since they do not work well on browsers that do not support it.
:
: Not necessarily. I think most would agree that DAT or CDs indicate
: progress in many ways, even if you have to use a particular tool to
: play them.
So, to draw this *poor* analogy to a logical conclusion, you are saying
that FRAMEs are not HTML, in much the same way that a CD is not a vinyl
record...
You need a new "tool" to play CDs; playing them on your record
player will not work.
You need a new "tool" to display a FRAMEd page; displaying it
on your web browser will not work.
So can we all agree that FRAMEs are not HTML, and return to a discussion
of HTML?
: I think you were missing my point. I was merely stating that some
: people do not like progress because it means they must learn something
: new.
I only dislike learning new things if they serve no discernible
purpose. I have yet to see a site which was made better by the
usage of FRAMEs.
--
_______________<http://www.netspace.org/users/ford/>_______________
|Daniel "Ford" Sohl |"Being flamed is the equivalent of a drive- |
| fo...@netspace.org | by shooting. It's unpleasant, but on the |
| The ____est Man | Internet, there's no blood. You live to use |
| on the Net | cyberspace another day." -- Unknown |
|Any E-mail spam sent to me will be spell-checked for a process- |
|ing fee of $200.00. Submission implies acceptance of these terms.|
David R. Newman
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.961013...@hpplus05.cern.ch>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
> As soon as I see
>authors offering instructions on how to use their site, it tells me that
>the site has not been properly designed. Unless this is a tutorial in
>how to use one's browser, a WWW site should just be seamlessly navigable
>using familiar features of each reader's chosen browser.
This is a somewhat hard design criterion to meet when building groupware
applications, such as a hierarchical, folding outliner (see
http://boris.qub.ac.uk/drn/outline/outline.html), in Javascript.
Any suggestions on how to do outlines without frames, or cut and paste in
familiar features of each reader's chosen browser?
Dr. D. R. Newman, Queen's University Belfast, School of Management, BELFAST BT7 1NN, UK. +44-1232-245133. http://www.qub.ac.uk/f&info/staff/dave
Andrew DeLancey
Where is *your* data for this statement? From the number of complaints
I see here every day about frames (both from people trying to write
them and people trying to escape from them), it seems that a significant
number of people aren't happy with them. In fact, I don't recall
ever seeing any "I just love viewing frames" posts here... ;)
Andrew
s...@anv.net
>: Not necessarily. I think most would agree that DAT or CDs indicate
>: progress in many ways, even if you have to use a particular tool to
>: play them.
>So, to draw this *poor* analogy to a logical conclusion, you are saying
>that FRAMEs are not HTML, in much the same way that a CD is not a vinyl
>record...
> You need a new "tool" to play CDs; playing them on your record
>player will not work.
> You need a new "tool" to display a FRAMEd page; displaying it
>on your web browser will not work.
Hey I'll tell you what. Both my web browsers can display frames. And
all my stereos can play cds. I was not saying that this is a complete
analogy. Certainly it has faults. I want everyone here to know there
are legitimate sites that use frames. And until someone shows me
solid data to the contrary, I will assume that people like them, as I
have had thousands of visitors to my sites, and not one complaint.
>So can we all agree that FRAMEs are not HTML, and return to a discussion
>of HTML?
No. I do not agree that frames are not a part of html. Maybe not
officially, but it is out there.
>I only dislike learning new things if they serve no discernible
>purpose. I have yet to see a site which was made better by the
>usage of FRAMEs.
Then you may not have been to the right sites.
Waiting for data...
Daniel 'Ford' Sohl
s...@anv.net wrote:
: >So can we all agree that FRAMEs are not HTML, and return to a discussion
: >of HTML?
: No. I do not agree that frames are not a part of html. Maybe not
: officially, but it is out there.
Explain how FRAMEs are a part of a logical mark-up system. Until then,
I will treat them as a part of NSML.
: >I only dislike learning new things if they serve no discernible
: >purpose. I have yet to see a site which was made better by the
: >usage of FRAMEs.
: Then you may not have been to the right sites.
I did not say FRAMEs could not improve a site, but of the hundreds
of sites I've been to in the last month or two, doesn't it seem
rather incredible that the usability of the subset of FRAMEd sites
is not higher than the non-FRAMEd sites?
Alan J. Flavell
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, David R. Newman wrote:
(quoting me)
> >authors offering instructions on how to use their site, it tells me that
> >the site has not been properly designed. Unless this is a tutorial in
> >how to use one's browser, a WWW site should just be seamlessly navigable
> >using familiar features of each reader's chosen browser.
>
> This is a somewhat hard design criterion to meet when building groupware
> applications, such as a hierarchical, folding outliner (see
> http://boris.qub.ac.uk/drn/outline/outline.html), in Javascript.
I was commenting on HTML pages.
If you are designing executable computer software, it stands to reason
that you'd want to document it. HTML markup is not, in the normal
sense of the term, executable computer software, and the user will have
instructions for using their browser and OS combination on their
platform.
When an author insists on trying to tell a user how to operate their
browser, they run the risk of telling a Mac user to "drag with the right
mouse button", or telling a Lynx user to "click on the green icon". I'd
say this is best avoided.
Javascript isn't HTML. Neither in principle nor in practice.
> Any suggestions on how to do outlines without frames,
There's been some discussion of outlining mode on this group in the
last day or two. Should be a browser function.
> or cut and paste in
> familiar features of each reader's chosen browser?
If the user doesn't know how to cut and paste with their particular
combination of browser and operating system, do you think you can help
them by offering a "one size fits all" prescription in your HTML
document? Frankly I think that's more likely to confuse than to help.
There are _so_ many differences from one OS and browser combination to
another, in even my limited experience.
best regards
Peter Coulter
me...@pobox.com (mathew) wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.961013...@hpplus05.cern.ch>,
>Alan J. Flavell <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>>I feel the urge to repeat my call for an Overview mode in browsers.
...
>I don't know whether the MSIE team will implement it, but I'm hopeful; after
>all, they implemented the "disable frames" option I suggested :-)
In which verion of MSIE is this found? 3.0? In which case where is the
option. I cann't find it - and would lilke to.
>mathew
>--
>me...@pobox.com content available at <URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/>
> Help prevent bias on the net; see <URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/rs/ot/>
> "There's safety in numbers... Large prime numbers." -- John Gilmore
Thanks.
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Coulter
"Views and opinions expressed are mine, and certainly not those of Logica."
Email: coul...@logica.com WWW: http://www.logica.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mathew
In article <5429ui$h...@romeo.logica.co.uk>,
Peter Coulter <coul...@logica.com> wrote:
>me...@pobox.com (mathew) wrote:
>>I don't know whether the MSIE team will implement it, but I'm hopeful; after
>>all, they implemented the "disable frames" option I suggested :-)
>
>In which verion of MSIE is this found? 3.0? In which case where is the
>option. I cann't find it - and would lilke to.
MSIE 2.1. For the Mac.
If the PC version doesn't have it yet, perhaps you should ask Microsoft to
add it.
Warren Steel
Mathew points out that MSIE 2.1 for Mac has the option to
disable frames. This week I've been playing with a Windows
browser, Opera (2.09 and 2.1b). In addition to the usual
configurations, Opera users can.
+disable/enable frames
*disable/enable effects of <FONT COLOR= >
*disable/enable or modify effects of <FONT SIZE= >
*disable/enable animated images
*disable/enable background sounds
*disable/enable HTTP-EQUIV refresh
*identify links by underline, or embossed button (as well as c
*Force borders around images that are links
*specify different fonts and sizes for regular text and
all six levels of headings
*load by default all images, no images, or only cached images
*Another feature of this efficient and user-friendly is the
ability to navigate totally with mouse or keyboard or both.
OPERA is shareware, available at http://traviata.nta.no/
mathew wrote:
>>>I don't know whether the MSIE team will implement it, but I'm hopeful; after
>>>all, they implemented the "disable frames" option I suggested :-)
>>In which verion of MSIE is this found? 3.0? In which case where is the
>>option. I cann't find it - and would lilke to.
> MSIE 2.1. For the Mac.
> If the PC version doesn't have it yet, perhaps you should ask Microsoft to
> add it.
--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
URL: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
Callie
Mark Mauerman <spid...@digimation.com> wrote:
>This has to do with the author of the site has the vision he has for his
>site. When Mercedes builds cars I don't think they have in mind what
>the person that earns $24,000 / year would like to see in a car, do
>they? Same is true with sites, software, and life in general these
>days.
When a new TV station comes on the air, does it create
programming that one must have a particular brand of TV in order
to see? No - the experience varies a bit, but I can still see
the X-Files on an aged black and white. It may look a bit better
and sound creepier on a big-screen with Dolby Surround sound,
but the basic information is there.
And to use the CD analogy ... in the early days of the
technology, there was a large meeting that SET THE STANDARD,
because they had seen what happened with VCRs. As a result of
everybody following the standards, CDs from Sony will play
happily in the same CD-player as those from RCA.
>CD-V technology is just around the corner, laser-disc
>has been out for several years, etc.?
And, BTW, the players for CD-V are designed to accept the old
population of CDs as well as being able to play the new stuff.
Again, the conscious decision of the manufacturers of the players
(browsers) to follow a standard to maximize accessibility to the
information out there. Incidentally, it does good things for
their profits, too.
>I call this wasted scrolling time. Most people generally don't take the
>time to scroll. They want to find what they are looking for
>immediately. No waiting.
Exactly ... and if the information I am after requires me to
spend time downloading the latest browser that uses
frigelmorphing just to see what you've got, I'm outta there.
If the navigational aids aren't available without downloading
an image map (usually with nothing more then GIFfed pictures of
text in artful fonts), I'm gone.
Callie
s...@anv.net wrote:
>>Try <URL:http://www.webweek.com/96Jun03/news/frame.html>.
>This article show absolutely no data. There is no survey, just an
>article by someone who does no like frames.
>>The article's conclusions are quite clear. 90% of the people whose browsers
>>*can* show frames, hate them -- and either turn them off or pick frameless
>>pages in preference to ones with frames.
>Where is this data? I need data like who was surveyed, how they were
>recruited, was the survey made available to the public, and
>demographics.
>There are some here who do not like frames. Not many. Definitely not
>enough to make no frames a standard.
And where is your data to support THIS conclusion? Please cite
the URLs, the specific survey, and all the traditional stuff.
Rent A Geek
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 07:50:26 GMT, s...@anv.net wrote:
>The fact is, no
>matter what the site looks like, people will use it if you have
>something they want.
And if your competitor has a better site?
>Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
I bet the folks at Netscape would have a thing or two to say about
that statement.
>Next you will hear people saying "Those darn high speed connections, I
>don't think we need them. We like slow connections to the Internet.
>We get that warm fuzzy feeling with our modem, even though it is
>slow."
>
Oh, that makes perfect sense.
Rent A Geek http://www.rentageek.com
Your Online Source For Computer Professionals
s...@anv.net
>>The fact is, no
>>matter what the site looks like, people will use it if you have
>>something they want.
>And if your competitor has a better site?
The question should be, what if your competitor has a better product?
I don't care how their site looks, I feel I am intelligent enough to
make a decision about the product I am buying, rather than whether or
not the site has frames. You certainly think highly of your target
audience if you underestimate their level of intelligence and their
ability to make a decision based on the quality of the product.
>>Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>>or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
>I bet the folks at Netscape would have a thing or two to say about
>that statement.
So would the people at Microsoft, whose browser is free and it doesn't
look as if that is changing. I did not specify which browser is free.
And the AOL browser, such as it is, is free with the subscription, and
I beleive the new version displays frames.
>>Next you will hear people saying "Those darn high speed connections, I
>>don't think we need them. We like slow connections to the Internet.
>>We get that warm fuzzy feeling with our modem, even though it is
>>slow."
>>
>Oh, that makes perfect sense.
My point exactly. It does not make sense to count frames out because
you don't like them. There are many people who would not change their
sites to satisfy no frames people. In fact, other than a few people
here, almost everyone I know really has no opinion, since they are
going to a site to get content, and are happy as long as the content
is organized.
If I create a site with frames and no one likes it, I will invite them
not to visit. If they rate my products based on whether or not I use
frames, then either I have a weak product to begin with, or the person
cannot make an educated decision based on facts. If, however, I
create a frames site without noframes, and a user cannot access the
site, then I have lost their business, and that is a risk I have the
right to take. I would not do this if my target audince do not have
frames capable browsers. But considering the data I have seen,
collected through reliable and valid surveys, most people are using
frames capable browsers.
I don't honestly see what all the problem is. I have not really seen
anyone post some real problems with frames other than "I don't like
them". If a browser can display them, and if it doesn't really slow
your browsing down, then what is the problem?
There are things you can do with frames you can't do without them.
For instance, show me how you can have a menu somewhere on the screen,
and have the menu stay static, while you browse the main content. You
can with frames. You can't without.
I will be glad to change my views, if someone can provide me with
solid reasons not to use them.
Chris Williams
in...@rentageek.com (Rent A Geek) writes:
>On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 07:50:26 GMT, s...@anv.net wrote:
>>Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>>or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
>I bet the folks at Netscape would have a thing or two to say about
>that statement.
...coupled with the fact that many corporations do not allow
employees to even *use* the latest version of Netscape because of
Java. Try to think like someone from an IT department. You have a
choice - either employees can use a safe, older browser with a
*known* set of bugs, or they can download a program that will allow
them to bring unknown live code from untrusted sources to their
hard disk.
And for what possible reason? Just to look at a "cool" site?
Sounds like a major "career limiting move".
If the web site is being run by a serious company, they will
make the information available in a form that can be read by all
browsers.
>>Next you will hear people saying "Those darn high speed connections, I
>>don't think we need them. We like slow connections to the Internet.
>>We get that warm fuzzy feeling with our modem, even though it is
>>slow."
>
>Oh, that makes perfect sense.
If one looks at the real statistics, up to 60% of all computers
accessing the internet have 14.4 modems. Yep. Even though 28.8 (not
to mention 33.6) modems have been available for quite some time,
the *majority* do not have them. Why? Because *that* was what shipped
in their computers! Mom and Dad and Bud and Sis are *not* computer
geeks! They don't know how to install a new modem, they don't know
how to download and install new browsers...have some of you people
ever met a non-geek?
Have you noticed that *most* people's VCR's have been flashing
12:00 for years? That the vast majority of VCR owners have no idea
how to make their VCR record?
Well, *that* bunch is the next group to get on the web. Every
technically oriented person who wants to get on the net is already
here. All the new users will have a decreasing level of technical
ability. Try to think of the people featured on AOL's TV commercials.
Try to imagine someone even more clueless. That is your future web
site visitor.
>Rent A Geek http://www.rentageek.com
>Your Online Source For Computer Professionals
"A friend told me to get America On-Line.
I said 'why? I have a computer'."
--
Chris Williams of
Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
chr...@miso.wwa.com (his)
vic...@miso.wwa.com (hers)
Matthew Hunter
s...@anv.net wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html on Sun, 13 Oct 1996 07:50:26 GMT:
> convenience. It makes my site manageable and organized. I could
> certainly create a similar site without frames, but why?
So that your site would be accessible to people who don't have
frames?
> I have read many messages complaining about frames, and I have heard
> not one valid argument why they should not be used. I agree with the
> noframes thing, if you want to make your site available to those using
> substandard browsers. But I have heard nothing stating a valid reason
> not to include them at all.
First, browsers which don't support frames hardly qualify as
substandard. They may well qualify as "not the latest version of
Netscape" but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are
substandard.
> You know, almost every browser now uses frames on the Windows
> platform. Even the AOL browser. The only ones that don't are Mosaic.
> Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
> or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
What about non-Windows platforms? I use an Amiga; I can't upgrade
to the latest version of Netscape. If you use frames without an
alternative, I may very well get locked out of that information (or at
least need to go to significantly more trouble to get at it).
Netscape, FWIW, isn't free unless you are affiliated with an
educational organization. I suggest you read the license agreement
again.
> Next you will hear people saying "Those darn high speed connections, I
> don't think we need them. We like slow connections to the Internet.
> We get that warm fuzzy feeling with our modem, even though it is
> slow."
Ethernet. It's a wonderful thing.
--
Matthew Hunter (mhun...@andrew.cmu.edu) (Amiga 4000/030)
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~mhunter -- My Homepage
http://shadow.res.cmu.edu/WheelOfTime/ for the Wheel of Time FAQ
http://www.harrybrowne96.org/ -- Vote Libertarian!
William C Sinn
On 11 Oct 1996 23:40:21 -0500, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry
Churchyard) wrote:
>In article <53m5tl$7...@raven.eva.net>, <s...@anv.net> wrote:
>> Frames can be very useful. For instance, on my page , I want the
>> menu visible wherever the person is on the pages, no matter where
>> they have scrolled to.
>
>One question: why? When I want to look at your menu, I'd rather just
>scroll to the top or the bottom of the page. What I don't want is your
>menu taking up space on the screen at moments when I don't need or want
>it. One of those sidebars with niggardly amounts of squished-in text,
>or (even worse) a column of enigmatic guess-provoking icons, doesn't
>really take the place of a genuine fully-functional table of contents
>anyway; I would advise you to devote your navigational efforts to
>producing such a full table of contents.
One simple comment - has it ever occurred to you that not all of us
design to YOUR personal taste? We design to the requirements of
paying customers, many of whom agree that frames can be and often are
helpful layout devices.
Callie
s...@anv.net wrote:
> But considering the data I have seen,
>collected through reliable and valid surveys, most people are using
>frames capable browsers.
off" option, which I use. I prefer to have a full screen display
of the current page, with largish fonts, and frames get in the
way.
>I don't honestly see what all the problem is. I have not really seen
>anyone post some real problems with frames other than "I don't like
>them". If a browser can display them, and if it doesn't really slow
>your browsing down, then what is the problem?
It diminishes, decreases, and degrades the readability of the
page FOR ME! And in my opinion, that is reason enough to gripe
about the damthings.
If a page author doesn't consider the visitor's likes and
dislikes, he will soon have a readership of one.
>There are things you can do with frames you can't do without them.
>For instance, show me how you can have a menu somewhere on the screen,
>and have the menu stay static, while you browse the main content. You
>can with frames. You can't without.
It was great, it was called <BANNER>, it was proposed for
HTML3, and the dweebs at Netscape couldn't figure out how to
implement it (although a German programmer had no problems with
the concept), so they devised frames and are trying to make them
the standard.
Ben Turner
chr...@sashimi.wwa.com (Chris Williams) wrote:
> If the web site is being run by a serious company, they will
> make the information available in a form that can be read by all
> browsers.
And if you know what you're doing, frames can be used and still allow
the page to be viewable by all browsers. <shrug>
I like frames if they're done correctly. They don't exactly have to
be necessary, but they can add a little something to pages sometimes,
imo.
It's a shame that the top two browsers aren't very flexible as far as
disabling/enabling things go.
{ Just commenting },
B.
"Sive iubes seu votas, hoc facio."
Ben Turner ( infi...@mail.utexas.edu )
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~infinity/
Darin McGrew
s...@anv.net wrote:
>>> Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>>> or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
in...@rentageek.com (Rent A Geek) wrote:
>> I bet the folks at Netscape would have a thing or two to say about
>> that statement.
s...@anv.net wrote:
> So would the people at Microsoft, whose browser is free and it doesn't
> look as if that is changing. I did not specify which browser is free.
Try rereading the first quote to which "Rent A Geek" replied. The obvious
interpretation is that "It is free" refers to Netscape. One could
interpret "It is free" to refer to "they should upgrade", but that isn't
the obvious interpretation.
> I don't honestly see what all the problem is. I have not really seen
> anyone post some real problems with frames other than "I don't like
> them". If a browser can display them, and if it doesn't really slow
> your browsing down, then what is the problem?
You've never heard any real problems with frames? How about:
+ You can't bookmark a frame configuration other than the one defined by
the top-level document. To return to a sub-document, you *must* return
to the top-level document and retrace your path through the site
navigation.
+ They break the operating model of the browser's "back" function. Instead
of returning to what was displayed before the previous link was followed,
the "back" function now returns to the document before the top-level
frames document.
+ On small browser windows, they often waste precious screen real estate on
navigation tools that are only needed at the beginning and end of a
document.
+ On slow data links, you have to make at least twice as many connections
to the server to get the page displayed. (Note that this doesn't
necessarily mean a slow modem; trans-atlantic connections are slow even
if I have an ISDN line.)
+ They don't degrade well on non--frames-enabled browsers, unless the
author was thoughtful enough to provide real NOFRAMES content.
There may be others; these are just the ones I could think of offhand.
Furthermore, like the <FONT> tag, frames seem to encourage poor design
choices. But that's a misuse of frames, not a problem with frames itself.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@ntos.tandem.com (alternate: mcgrew...@tandem.com)
personal: mcg...@rahul.net, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
"Nice is different than good." -- LRRH, Into the Woods
Robert Iles
s...@anv.net wrote:
... chop ...
> not to visit. If they rate my products based on whether or not I use
> frames, then either I have a weak product to begin with, or the person
> cannot make an educated decision based on facts. If, however, I
But what if they are reading various company's web pages to gather the
facts to make an informed choice only your site's use of frames (or
indeed any other tag/style) means that they can't find, don't get, can't
print easily, can't bookmark easily the information on your products ...
surely you are ruling yourself out of the shortlist?
I'm also not sure that having the better product, even if you can
convince people, is the key to success! Computing, like almost all
market sectors, is littered with the corpses of technically superior
technologies that were beaten by better marketed, promoted or supported
ones
--
Robert M J Iles /V\ R.M.J...@nag.co.uk
Manager, Software Environments Division o_o http://www.nag.co.uk
The Numerical Algorithms Group Limited =( )= Tel: +44 1865 511245
Oxford, UK, OX2 8DR U Fax: +44 1865 311205
Grinch
Matthew Hunter <mhu...@SHADOW.RES.CMU.EDU> wrote in article
<19961018.7...@SHADOW.RES.CMU.EDU>...
> s...@anv.net wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html on Sun, 13 Oct
1996 07:50:26 GMT:
> > convenience. It makes my site manageable and organized. I could
> > certainly create a similar site without frames, but why?
>
> So that your site would be accessible to people who don't have
> frames?
The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. It's a simple enough matter
to set up server side includes that allow you to source both framed and
non-framed versions of your site from the same files, so maintainability is
a non-issue as well.
> First, browsers which don't support frames hardly qualify as
> substandard. They may well qualify as "not the latest version of
> Netscape" but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are
> substandard.
You're technically correct, but a browser that perfectly implements the
official standard can still be woefully inadequate when compared to the de
facto standard. Do you honestly think that, for the average web surfer,
compliance with official standards is more important than support for Java,
Javascript, and Plug-ins?
The official standards bodies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
They're no longer in a position to debate the alternatives for months or
years, and then hand down a royal decision to the unwashed masses of the
net. If they keep attempting to do so, then the official standards will be
increasingly irrelevant to the real world.
> What about non-Windows platforms? I use an Amiga; I can't upgrade
> to the latest version of Netscape.
You also can't use it if you use a Vic-20, an Altair, or a Lisa. So what?
You chose to use a poorly-supported platform, so you should be prepared to
accept the consequences of your choice. If having the ability to run a
large variety of software is important to you (as it is to me), then you
should be using a PC or a Mac.
-grinch
s...@anv.net
>>There are some here who do not like frames. Not many. Definitely not
>>enough to make no frames a standard.
> And where is your data to support THIS conclusion? Please cite
>the URLs, the specific survey, and all the traditional stuff.
I stated that there are not many people here in this newsgroup do not
like frames. That is very simple. Look at the posts. Count them.
There is your answer. I did not make a generalization, as many people
here do, that what is going on in this group is indicative of what is
going on in the rest of the world. What I will say is that there are
not enough people who frequent this group to make anything standard.
I am trying to find data that supports people's statements here that
frames are not accepted on a general basis.
Gil Harvey
Callie wrote:
> Perhaps ... but the frames-capable browser I use has a "frames
> off" option, which I use. I prefer to have a full screen display
> of the current page, with largish fonts, and frames get in the
> way.
Your option.
> It diminishes, decreases, and degrades the readability of the
> page FOR ME! And in my opinion, that is reason enough to gripe
> about the damthings.
> If a page author doesn't consider the visitor's likes and
> dislikes, he will soon have a readership of one.
And if he considers the likes & dislikes of every person with internet
access, he will have a readership of 0.
> It was great, it was called <BANNER>, it was proposed for
> HTML3, and the dweebs at Netscape couldn't figure out how to
> implement it (although a German programmer had no problems with
> the concept), so they devised frames and are trying to make them
> the standard.
Yep, <BANNER> would have been very usefull. I did not like frames
either, and would not use them. But they are here to stay, so we had
better learn how to use them in a constructive way. Complaining that
Netscape forced them on us will not make them go away. I remember (10
years ago) complaining about people driving with cell phones and
disrupting traffic, but they are still here - and I couldn't get along
without mine :-)
--
Gil Harvey "The Old Hippy" -
Old Hippy Productions
Web Page Design & Maint. -
Alan J. Flavell
On 18 Oct 1996, Grinch wrote:
> Matthew Hunter <mhu...@SHADOW.RES.CMU.EDU> wrote in article
> <19961018.7...@SHADOW.RES.CMU.EDU>...
> > So that your site would be accessible to people who don't have
> > frames?
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. It's a simple enough matter
> to set up server side includes that allow you to source both framed and
> non-framed versions of your site from the same files, so maintainability is
> a non-issue as well.
What you say is in theory correct, but I don't see that theory carried
into practice often enough. Not nearly enough. Remember, numerous
discerning readers have told us here that they _prefer_ not to be framed
- and have been flamed for expressing a preference since, they got told,
the "paying customer" _WANTS_ frames, so there. This alone carries an
important message, for those willing to read it. Those who prefer to do
precisely what their paymasters told them to do, irrespective of the
preferences of the end users, fall into a different class.
> > First, browsers which don't support frames hardly qualify as
> > substandard. They may well qualify as "not the latest version of
> > Netscape" but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are
> > substandard.
>
> You're technically correct, but a browser that perfectly implements the
> official standard can still be woefully inadequate when compared to the de
> facto standard.
And the de facto (read: mass market) standard can be woefully inadequate
if you've ever seen what an advanced browser can do - with a
straightforwardly marked up HTML document, a tastefully chosen
preferences setup, [and optionally a style sheet].
> The official standards bodies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Ah yes, the ultimate weapon.
> You chose to use a poorly-supported platform,
Poorly supported for what? As it happens, I don't run an Amiga myself
(though I do run a Psion); but I see no reason why the Amia should
be denied access to HTML merely because you in your wisdom decree that
it's a poorly-supported platform. Poorly supported for what, pray?
It's a poor engine management system. My auto has a better engine
management system than your [whatever web browser you use], but I
dont expect my engine management system to be a better web browser
too. I reckon you're just lashing out for the sake of lashing out.
Which is a pity, as you often talk good sense.
Brian Russ
"Frank Condron" <fr...@conitech.com> writes:
>I've never had frames on my site (Frank's Windows Page,
>http://www.conitech.com/windows/), and every single time I ask in my
>discussion groups if I should use them, I'm overwhelmed by the number of
>people that tell me not to.
>I haven't kept numbers, but I would easily bet that I get 20 "Don't use
>frames" responses for every "Yeah, use frames" response.
>I've recently recoded my main page with a 'menu table' running down the
>left side - perfect candidate for a frame, but I'm leary of using one
>because of the above.
Well, that's pretty much what I did. I had my non-frames pages
up for six months or so, and decided to switch to a frames version --
I have an index on the left side (as you said, a perfect frame
candidate) and I personally found that it made navigating through
my pages (over four hundred) quicker and easier.
And most people seemed to agree. I got several (a dozen or so)
compliments that the new-look frames version was better than my old
version. I got exactly one person who said he disliked frames in
general (he didn't address whether my use was valid, he just didn't
like frames period). I was apprehensive about switching because I
had been reading this newsgroup and saw how many disliked frames,
but I'm glad I switched, and apparently my readers are too.
That's not to say I haven't seen a lot of bad frames usage (I
have), nor do I think that frames are perfect, and in fact I'd like
to come up with a still better way to present my information. For
now, though, I think frames did all right. (I'd appreciate comments
from readers here about how my pages look from a presentation
standpoint).
Brian
--
Brian Russ br...@ucsd.edu
The BNR Metal Pages: http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/bruss/Metal/Metal.html
Alan J. Flavell
On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Gil Harvey wrote:
> Yep, <BANNER> would have been very usefull. I did not like frames
> either, and would not use them. But they are here to stay, so we had
> better learn how to use them in a constructive way. Complaining that
> Netscape forced them on us will not make them go away. I remember (10
> years ago) complaining about people driving with cell phones and
> disrupting traffic, but they are still here -
Interesting analogy. It's a criminal offence in the UK, at least, to
use a hand held cellphone when driving.
However, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to use a cellphone
[when stationary] to read an HTML page. So, then we come back to
whether frames make much sense on a hand-held character cell display.
--
best regards
"...with all the charm of a snake-oil salesman" -Barry Norman on BBC1
Warren Steel
>>> I could
>>> certainly create a similar site without frames, but why?
>> So that your site would be accessible to people who don't have
>> frames?
Grinch wrote:
> The two are not mutually exclusive, you know.
Agreed. If you think frames would be an "enhancement"
to your site, then design it as well as you can without
frames. so that everyone can use it. Then, if you *still*
feel that frames would add something, then add the framed
version, with the earlier version fully accessible from the
Noframes element. Or better yet, offer users the choice to
enter the framed version if they wish. Why? I might find
frames tolerable on my Sun workstation with huge monitor.
But what if I'm running Netscape in a hotel room on a small-
display laptop? Netscape users cannot disable frames. And,
as everyone is fond of pointing out, Netscape is by far the
most popular browser. Because their browser lacks flexibility
and configurability, its users must be coddled a bit more than
the ordinary. Design for your target, right?
[non-frame browsers not "sub-standard"
> You're technically correct, but a browser that perfectly implements the
> official standard can still be woefully inadequate when compared to the de
> facto standard. Do you honestly think that, for the average web surfer,
> compliance with official standards is more important than support for Java,
> Javascript, and Plug-ins?
I thought RFC 1866 was the official standard, and Wilbur
was the de facto standard. Do you think that "support for Java,
Javascript, and Plug-ins" is more important to users than basic
functionality and accessibility?
> The official standards bodies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
> They're no longer in a position to debate the alternatives for months or
> years, and then hand down a royal decision to the unwashed masses of the
> net. If they keep attempting to do so, then the official standards will be
> increasingly irrelevant to the real world.
I suppose you mean the W3C. Have a look sometime at
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Consortium/Member/List.html
Search for names like Microsoft, Netscape, Sun, Spyglass,
Adobe, and any others you care to name. You might be
surprised. Are these the sleepy dinosaurs you were talking
about?
s...@anv.net
>Poorly supported for what? As it happens, I don't run an Amiga myself
>(though I do run a Psion); but I see no reason why the Amia should
>be denied access to HTML merely because you in your wisdom decree that
>it's a poorly-supported platform. Poorly supported for what, pray?
>It's a poor engine management system. My auto has a better engine
>management system than your [whatever web browser you use], but I
>dont expect my engine management system to be a better web browser
>too. I reckon you're just lashing out for the sake of lashing out.
It is poorly supported. For instance, how many different software
packages are available for the Amiga? Can you get the best
development tools, word processors, and spreadsheet applications? How
many shops in town can repair your Amiga if it goes bad. Video
Toaster is a good application. That is the only useful one I have
seen on the Amiga.
It's not the first time Amiga users have faced this difficulty.
Alan J. Flavell
On Fri, 18 Oct 1996 s...@anv.net wrote:
> I stated that there are not many people here in this newsgroup do not
> like frames. That is very simple. Look at the posts. Count them.
Sure: count them.
My impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the posts come in
roughly this order:
no.1: "I'm having problems with frames"
no.2 "I don't like frames when I'm reading WWW pages"
How many posts report to us "I'm having great success with frames,
and all my readers [email me, fill in the feedback form, etc. to] say
how wonderful they are"?
> There is your answer. I did not make a generalization, as many people
> here do, that what is going on in this group is indicative of what is
> going on in the rest of the world.
Of course you're right. The people who post questions here are those
who have problems. And many of their problems are with frames. Could
you draw a conclusion from that? I could. I've certainly considered
adding the word "frame" to the killfile, since such a large proportion
of postings are complaining about frames, and I'm still not quite sure
where I would ever need to use them. I tend to assume that my users
know how to work a browser, with hotlists and Back functions and such,
and even "clone window" when they get serious. My job is to keep them
at my site by offering material that interests them - not by trying to
entrap them in a frameset...
Out in the real world, people are doing a useful job, with things that
work, and don't consider it necessary to post questions here.
Statistics are indeed a curious thing. You can make them mean more or
less whatever you want them to mean.
> I am trying to find data that supports people's statements here that
> frames are not accepted on a general basis.
Why are you trying to do that?
--
best regards
s...@anv.net
>You've never heard any real problems with frames? How about:
>+ You can't bookmark a frame configuration other than the one defined by
> the top-level document. To return to a sub-document, you *must* return
> to the top-level document and retrace your path through the site
> navigation.
Valid if this is important to you.
>+ They break the operating model of the browser's "back" function. Instead
> of returning to what was displayed before the previous link was followed,
> the "back" function now returns to the document before the top-level
> frames document.
This has been fixed in MSIE, and I beleive in Netscape.
>+ On small browser windows, they often waste precious screen real estate on
> navigation tools that are only needed at the beginning and end of a
> document.
I have documents where I want a menu present at all times. This is
not possible without frames.
>+ On slow data links, you have to make at least twice as many connections
> to the server to get the page displayed. (Note that this doesn't
> necessarily mean a slow modem; trans-atlantic connections are slow even
> if I have an ISDN line.)
I would rather make twice as many connections to the server and have a
well organized page. There are bigger speed issues, like large
graphics and imagemaps.
>+ They don't degrade well on non--frames-enabled browsers, unless the
> author was thoughtful enough to provide real NOFRAMES content.
You have to know your target audience. If you want to appeal to those
without frames capabilities, then create a site accordingly. If your
target audience has Netscape or MSIE, and if the site needs it, use
frames.
I am not saying that frames are appropriate for all sites. Of all the
sites I have created, only 10% have them. And they were necessary on
those sites.
>There may be others; these are just the ones I could think of offhand.
>Furthermore, like the <FONT> tag, frames seem to encourage poor design
>choices. But that's a misuse of frames, not a problem with frames itself.
I am concerned with the use of frames, not the misuse. Every HTML tag
has been misused at one time or another.
s...@anv.net
> Exactly ... and if the information I am after requires me to
>spend time downloading the latest browser that uses
>frigelmorphing just to see what you've got, I'm outta there.
> If the navigational aids aren't available without downloading
>an image map (usually with nothing more then GIFfed pictures of
>text in artful fonts), I'm gone.
Mark Jones
Grinch <gri...@whoville.com> wrote in article
<01bbbd16$d121bd00$f2df...@sherm.whoville.com>...
> Matthew Hunter <mhu...@SHADOW.RES.CMU.EDU> wrote in article
>
> > First, browsers which don't support frames hardly qualify as
> > substandard. They may well qualify as "not the latest version of
> > Netscape" but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are
> > substandard.
>
> You're technically correct, but a browser that perfectly implements the
> official standard can still be woefully inadequate when compared to the
de
> facto standard. Do you honestly think that, for the average web surfer,
> compliance with official standards is more important than support for
Java,
> Javascript, and Plug-ins?
>
> > What about non-Windows platforms? I use an Amiga; I can't upgrade
> > to the latest version of Netscape.
>
> You also can't use it if you use a Vic-20, an Altair, or a Lisa. So
what?
> You chose to use a poorly-supported platform, so you should be prepared
to
> accept the consequences of your choice. If having the ability to run a
> large variety of software is important to you (as it is to me), then you
> should be using a PC or a Mac.
>
You are absolutely correct. I got rid of my Amiga because PCs
are better supported and can do everything that I need to do.
I gave up on Commodore ever getting their act together many
years ago. There aren't any browsers for lots of old computers.
So what? I also have a MAC IIx that will not get fixed if it quits
working. My Pentium PC is my primary computer now.
Arjun Ray
In <01bbbd16$d121bd00$f2df...@sherm.whoville.com>,
"Grinch" <gri...@whoville.com> writes:
| The official standards bodies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
-sigh-. Not again...
| They're no longer in a position to debate the alternatives for
| months or years, and then hand down a royal decision to the unwashed
| masses of the net.
Anyone who repeats this stupid canard, invoking vaguely distasteful
images of "committees on yon high" indulging in Olympian esoterica or
whatever, at once proves his utter ignorance of Internet standards and
the standards process.
Please read RFC 1602, and use the search engine of your choice to find
out about the Internet Society and the IETF.
If you're expecting to be "handed down" a decision, don't hold your
breath.
Nobody has the authority, let alone the right, to do so.
Your expectations (or predispositions) notwithstanding, it's not
anyone's job, let alone duty, to do so.
| If they keep attempting to do so, then the official standards will
| be increasingly irrelevant to the real world.
Internet standards have no official standing, unlike ISO standards.
The Internet Society is private: its agreements are voluntary and for
the benefit of participants. You are not spared the effort to be
"pro-active", as they say these days.
And the real world does tolerably well without standards. If you don't
like that, what are *you* doing about it?
:ar
Brent Eades
chr...@sashimi.wwa.com (Chris Williams) wrote:
>>>Netscape is available for many platforms. If someone is using a bad
>>>or old browser, they should upgrade. It is free you know.
> ...coupled with the fact that many corporations do not allow
>employees to even *use* the latest version of Netscape because of
>Java. Try to think like someone from an IT department. You have a
>choice - either employees can use a safe, older browser with a
>*known* set of bugs, or they can download a program that will allow
>them to bring unknown live code from untrusted sources to their
>hard disk.
Yep. I'm doing a lot of Web work for a large Canadian government
department lately (16,000 employees, high-tech oriented)... and
discovered only last week that they are still standardized on Netscape
1.1 (!)
But there are various good reasons for this... as you say, it's old
and safe, it displays all the important information (on a
well-designed site) efficiently, and it doesn't have the Java holes
built in.
There's also the question of purchasing thousands of new copies of the
browser, and then training staff how to use it... a major IS
commitment.
I just did an informal survey by phone amongst several colleagues,
clients and friends, all of whom are quite computer-literate and
savvy... and learned that only one of eight is actually using Netscape
3.0. As the rest said, more or less, "NS 1.1/1.22/2.0 is quite
adequate... don't need anything more just now."
Food for thought.
Ron Newman
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.96101...@hpplus05.cern.ch>,
Alan J. Flavell <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>> >authors offering instructions on how to use their site, it tells me that
>> >the site has not been properly designed. Unless this is a tutorial in
>> >how to use one's browser, a WWW site should just be seamlessly navigable
>> >using familiar features of each reader's chosen browser.
>When an author insists on trying to tell a user how to operate their
>browser, they run the risk of telling a Mac user to "drag with the right
>mouse button", or telling a Lynx user to "click on the green icon". I'd
>say this is best avoided.
I've been know to say, on occasion, "To do <X>, follow _this link_".
I know this violates some of the widely circulated style guidelines,
but I really don't see the harm in it.
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Ron Newman
In article <w4d8ylw...@loiosh.kei.com>,
Christopher Davis <c...@loiosh.kei.com> wrote:
>
> sww> I am addressing those who make sweeping statements such as "frames
> sww> are bad". There are appropriate uses and many misuses.
>
>However, it seems that the appropriate uses are few and the inappropriate
>ones are many. Even Netscape's home page no longer uses frames! The vast
>amount of misuse of <BLINK> caused many of us to turn it off, thereby
>cutting out the few sites that did use it appropriately; I suspect that
>the same thing is starting to happen with frames.
An example of an application that (imho) works much better with
frames than without them is a "live chat" page. Such a page
should contain a log of the most recent chat messages, plus a form
to type your own message into.
However, if you use either client-pull or server-push to accomplish
this, you end up with a situation where the page gets auto-refreshed while
the user is trying to type into it, and the user loses all the text
she was trying to enter. This is Not Good.
With frames, I can put the fill-in form in one frame, and the
auto-refreshing log in another.
[posted and e-mailed]
Colin F Reynolds
In article <540ga5$6...@raven.eva.net>, s...@anv.net writes
>There are some here who do not like frames. Not many. Definitely not
>enough to make no frames a standard.
o/~
I'd like to add my voice to the "indifferent-to-frames" lobby. IMHO even
when done well, frames are not worth the extra effort (except perhaps on
an Intranet) because one does not know what setup and equipment is being
used to view the information. And of course, the whole point of HTML is
that one does not *need* to know!
Frames are just yet another way in which people creating pages can fool
themselves into thinking that they are creating "cool" pages. They look
great on their own system, so they think they will look great on
everyone else's, too.
Just because something *can* be done does not mean that it *must* be
done. Often, the opposite is true.
===============================================================
In article <3267E0...@foto.infi.net>, Gil Harvey
<gha...@foto.infi.net> writes
> Yep, <BANNER> would have been very usefull. I did not like frames
>either, and would not use them. But they are here to stay, so we had
>better learn how to use them in a constructive way.
<python>Don't you oppress me!</python>
Seriously, I didn't realize that we were so hamstrung. What's so
difficult about lobbying for <banner> to be implemented, and simply
refraining from using frames?
> Complaining that
>Netscape forced them on us will not make them go away. I remember (10
>years ago) complaining about people driving with cell phones and
>disrupting traffic, but they are still here - and I couldn't get along
>without mine :-)
Yes, truly a case of survival of the fittest. It's just a pity that
those idiots driving while talking on mobile phones also take out non-
mobile-phone-using drivers too. But that's another topic.
--
Colin Reynolds, Managing Director mailto:co...@the-net-effect.com
The Net Effect (World Wide) Ltd http://www.the-net-effect.com/
PO Box 78 Chesterfield Tel: +44 (0)1246 232 220
S43 1YZ United Kingdom Fax: +44 (0)1246 222 909
Victor Engel
cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
> When a new TV station comes on the air, does it create
>programming that one must have a particular brand of TV in order
>to see? No - the experience varies a bit, but I can still see
>the X-Files on an aged black and white. It may look a bit better
>and sound creepier on a big-screen with Dolby Surround sound,
>but the basic information is there.
What about HDTV, stereo TV and closed captioning. You need specialized
TVs for all of these.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Engel Vector Angle
St...@The-Light.com lig...@onr.com
http://the-light.com http://www.onr.com/user/lights
Alan J. Flavell
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Victor Engel wrote:
> cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
>
> > When a new TV station comes on the air, does it create
> >programming that one must have a particular brand of TV in order
> >to see? No - the experience varies a bit, but I can still see
> >the X-Files on an aged black and white. It may look a bit better
> >and sound creepier on a big-screen with Dolby Surround sound,
> >but the basic information is there.
>
> What about HDTV, stereo TV and closed captioning. You need specialized
> TVs for all of these.
I thought they were designed to be able to display normal pictures
and play normal sound on conventional TVs.
A stereo system or subtitling system that prevented an older tv
from displaying even a normal picture or playing even mono sound would
seem kind'a perverse. Hmmm, reminds me of some javascripts...
--
best regards
Callie
s...@anv.net wrote:
>> If the navigational aids aren't available without downloading
>>an image map (usually with nothing more then GIFfed pictures of
>>text in artful fonts), I'm gone.
>Too bad. You're missing some great stuff out there.
If the navigational aids I see indicate something of
interest, I can always launch something. But, I'm not going to
waste time on a site that doesn't provide me with a clue about
what is behind their [IMAGE] [LINK] [IMAGE] tags.
In other words ... as long as http://www.studmuffins.com uses
ALT="Mr. January, Quicktime 17MB" tags, I'm fine, thank you.
You missed the point ... which was this:
>> if the information I am after requires me to
>>spend time downloading the latest browser that uses
>>frigelmorphing just to see what you've got, I'm outta there.
I was at the Netscape site, to search for some specific
information (BTW - they aren't using frames any more ... is that
a clue). Their search engine only works if you are using Java,
and my browser doesn't support it.
So, to find anything on their site, I would have to download
JAVA and another browser, install them, test them, fix any
glitches they caused, and then finally go back and get the info.
Not worth the effort. (and I told them so)
Also, I don't trust JAVA not to be misused by a malicious
person, and NS has a sorry record of allowing user control over
plug-ins, add-ons, and doo-dads.
Callie
wcs...@swinteractive.com (William C Sinn) wrote:
>One simple comment - has it ever occurred to you that not all of us
>design to YOUR personal taste? We design to the requirements of
>paying customers, many of whom agree that frames can be and often are
>helpful layout devices.
William -
But, those "paying customers" are hoping to attract persons who
will buy their products ... and the preferences of the visitors
are what really count in the end.
Callie
st...@the-light.com (Victor Engel) wrote:
>cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
>> When a new TV station comes on the air, does it create
>>programming that one must have a particular brand of TV in order
>>to see?
>What about HDTV, stereo TV and closed captioning. You need specialized
>TVs for all of these.
I can still hear the sound, albeit in monaural, and see the
pictures at the standard resolution. (closed captioning is the
equivalent of a plug-in, and may or may not be visible, depending
on the age of the TV. It requires special hardware.)
Grinch
Callie <cal...@writepage.com> wrote in article
<542vkh$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> And where is your data to support THIS conclusion? Please cite
> the URLs, the specific survey, and all the traditional stuff.
Frames have some very vocal critics, but it is my belief that the largely
silent majority neither likes or dislikes frames in general, preferring to
judge the sites they visit individually.
This seems to be the logical conclusion, even in the absence of hard data.
If you think about it, it's obvious that the decisions of Microsoft,
Netscape, et al have little to do with technical merit and everything to do
with marketing and public opinion. If frames were as universally hated as
many here have suggested, wouldn't the public hue and cry have forced both
companies to remove frame support from their browsers, or at least to add
the ability to turn frame support off? They've done neither.
Anyway, what's the big deal? If you don't like frames, don't use them, and
don't use a browser that supports them. No one is twisting your arm here,
and forcing you to use or view frames if you don't want to. You go your
way, I'll go mine, and no harm is done to either of us.
-grinch
s...@anv.net
cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
>s...@anv.net wrote:
>>> If the navigational aids aren't available without downloading
>>>an image map (usually with nothing more then GIFfed pictures of
>>>text in artful fonts), I'm gone.
>>Too bad. You're missing some great stuff out there.
> If the navigational aids I see indicate something of
>interest, I can always launch something. But, I'm not going to
>waste time on a site that doesn't provide me with a clue about
>what is behind their [IMAGE] [LINK] [IMAGE] tags.
> In other words ... as long as http://www.studmuffins.com uses
>ALT="Mr. January, Quicktime 17MB" tags, I'm fine, thank you.
> You missed the point ... which was this:
>>> if the information I am after requires me to
>>>spend time downloading the latest browser that uses
>>>frigelmorphing just to see what you've got, I'm outta there.
I still stand behind my comment that you are missing a lot of great
stuff out there because of your personal tastes.
And I started this thread with a purpose. There are some here who
have said that most of the general public does not like frames. I
wanted to know where they are getting this data. I received one
article that turned out to be unusable to support the no frames cause.
I will debate your preferences if you like, but that is in another
thread.
Callie
s...@anv.net wrote:
>And I started this thread with a purpose. There are some here who
>have said that most of the general public does not like frames. I
>wanted to know where they are getting this data.
And I replied that I want to know where you got your data that
says frames _are_ popular.
s...@anv.net
> I was at the Netscape site, to search for some specific
>information (BTW - they aren't using frames any more ... is that
>a clue).
quite possible that Netscape realizes that many people go to their
site to download their browser. These people may or may not have
frames capable browsers. So if they had their site optimized using
frames, their new customers would not be impressed.
You might be interested in the following information, taken from GVU's
survey of 6,619 Internet users.
<
Browser Expected to Use in 12 Months
Notes:
This is a new question for the Fifth survey. For this question, we
asked respondents what browser they expected to be using in 12 months.
These numbers may be somewhat biased because Netscape provided a link
to the survey while it was executing. This may have led to a
disproportional amount of Netscape users responding, so these results
should be interpreted conservatively.
Despite the fact that the actual percentage for Netscape might be
inflated (89.4%), it is clear that it is the dominant Web browser. The
only other specific browser with a notable percentage was Microsoft's
Internet Explorer with 3.8%. 5.2% report using some "other" browser
not listed in the question.
>
Now, even though Netscape provided a link to the survey, their nearest
possible competitor was "other" with 5.2%. They did not say how many
people came from the Netscape site, but this is still such a wide
margin that it cannot be ignored.
This survey is not perfect, but it is better than than data I have
gotten here.
Callie
"Grinch" <gri...@whoville.com> wrote:
>This seems to be the logical conclusion, even in the absence of hard data.
>If you think about it, it's obvious that the decisions of Microsoft,
>Netscape, et al have little to do with technical merit and everything to do
>with marketing and public opinion. If frames were as universally hated as
>many here have suggested, wouldn't the public hue and cry have forced both
>companies to remove frame support from their browsers, or at least to add
>the ability to turn frame support off? They've done neither.
Netscape doesn't use frames on their site ... although they
do force me to download about 30K of useless JAVAscript
before they dole out the contents. Microsoft doesn't use
frames either. One wonders why, if it's such a neat feature,
and they don't allow their users to disable it, they aren't.
And it's easy to disable frames with either browser ... just
download OPERA, or drop back to a version of NS or IE that
doesn't have all the junky "features".
OPERA allows me to open a destination in a second window,
providing all the functionality of <frame> without the hassle,
and on sites that eren't even using <frameset>.
Tero Paananen
>This seems to be the logical conclusion, even in the absence of hard data.
>If you think about it, it's obvious that the decisions of Microsoft,
>Netscape, et al have little to do with technical merit and everything to do
>with marketing and public opinion. If frames were as universally hated as
>many here have suggested, wouldn't the public hue and cry have forced both
>companies to remove frame support from their browsers, or at least to add
>the ability to turn frame support off? They've done neither.
They may have not removed (or provided "frames off" -option), but Netscape
did remove frames from their site due to complaints from users.
Furthermore the masses wouldn't know if frames are bad or not even if it
was tattooed on Marc Andersen's forehead.
>Anyway, what's the big deal? If you don't like frames, don't use them, and
>don't use a browser that supports them. No one is twisting your arm here,
>and forcing you to use or view frames if you don't want to.
Maybe not forcing, but I do wonder what are people with
<NOFRAMES>
Your browser is inferior, download Netscape NOW!
</NOFRAMES>
(or a variation) thinking of...
-TPP
Jakob Nielsen
In article <54bsiv$h...@shell1.cybercom.net> Ron Newman,
rne...@shell1.cybercom.net writes:
>I've been know to say, on occasion, "To do <X>, follow _this link_".
>I know this violates some of the widely circulated style guidelines,
>but I really don't see the harm in it.
Making _this link_ the anchor doesn't actively do any harm (as opposed
to, say, using frames :-) but if you had made _X_ the hyperlink anchor
instead, you would have gained a small benefit: users who scan your page
rather than reading it carefully (i.e., most users) would pick up on the
high-information-content word _X_ rather than the low-information-content
term _this link_.
Daniel 'Ford' Sohl
Grinch (gri...@whoville.com) wrote:
["both companies" refers to, obviously, Microsoft and Netscape]
: with marketing and public opinion. If frames were as universally hated as
: many here have suggested, wouldn't the public hue and cry have forced both
: companies to remove frame support from their browsers, or at least to add
: the ability to turn frame support off? They've done neither.
Ah, but neither uses frames on their homepages (Netscape actually
used to, but removed it -- clue?), and Microsoft implemented
the ability to turn frames off in MSIE 2.1 for Macintosh. Beats
me why it's not in the 3.0 for windows. That feature, above all else,
is why I personally use MSIE 2.1 instead of Netscape x.x. In the
vast majority of cases I leave 'em off, but if a site has info
I want/need and doesn't provide a non-framed alternative, I will
reluctantly turn them on (in addition to firing off a complaint
to the webmaster).
--
_______________<http://www.netspace.org/users/ford/>_______________
|Daniel "Ford" Sohl |"Being flamed is the equivalent of a drive- |
| fo...@netspace.org | by shooting. It's unpleasant, but on the |
| The ____est Man | Internet, there's no blood. You live to use |
| on the Net | cyberspace another day." -- Douglas Adams |
|Any E-mail spam sent to me will be spell-checked for a process- |
|ing fee of $200.00. Submission implies acceptance of these terms.|
Daniel 'Ford' Sohl
s...@anv.net wrote:
: > I was at the Netscape site, to search for some specific
: >information (BTW - they aren't using frames any more ... is that
: >a clue).
: quite possible that Netscape realizes that many people go to their
: site to download their browser. These people may or may not have
: frames capable browsers. So if they had their site optimized using
: frames, their new customers would not be impressed.
When Netscape was using frames, there was an option to turn them
on and off... clearly indicating that a NOFRAMES option (that
worked quite well) did exist. Now there's no option -- it's all
sans FRAMEs.
s...@anv.net
cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
>s...@anv.net wrote:
>>And I started this thread with a purpose. There are some here who
>>have said that most of the general public does not like frames. I
>>wanted to know where they are getting this data.
> And I replied that I want to know where you got your data that
>says frames _are_ popular.
I never said that they were popular. By the nature of my question,
the burdon of proof is on the non frames programmers whom have stated
that frames are not popular. An appropriate reply to this question of
"why not?" is not "why?". However, I will tell you that I have been a
part of creating several frames sites, and not a single one has
received negative feedback. They have received thousands of hits,
many compliments, awards, but no complaints. This in no way
constitutes a survey, but it certainly makes me wonder if the no
frames public is fairly small and isolated. In fact, in the title of
this thread, it says nothing about pro or anti frames, merely where is
the data? I agree that proper programming requires that you cater to
the greatest number of persons. But I have heard many arguments
stating that many people do not have frames capabilities. I know this
is overstated, based on surveys I have read, and the overwhelming
poularity of Netscape, and its nearest single rival, MSIE. There are
others who state that they just don't prefer frames, and that question
lends itself to survey. That is the data I want. If the majority or
even a large minority of users don't like frames, as some have stated
here, then where is the data these people are getting this
information? I have made no statements to the popularity or lack
thereof regarding frames. Others have. I said prove it.
Grinch
Daniel 'Ford' Sohl <fo...@netspace.org> wrote in article
<54ehjv$o...@cocoa.brown.edu>...
> ["both companies" refers to, obviously, Microsoft and Netscape]
> Ah, but neither uses frames on their homepages
I haven't visited the Netscape site recently, but as a VJ++ user I frequent
the MS Developer's forum, and other parts of their site as well. The MS
site makes extensive use of frames, although you are correct that they are
not used on the home page.
> (Netscape actually used to, but removed it -- clue?)
They didn't entirely remove it. Their "framed" site had a link to a
"non-framed" version from day one. The only change they made was to switch
the default from "framed" to "non-framed."
> and Microsoft implemented
> the ability to turn frames off in MSIE 2.1 for Macintosh. Beats
> me why it's not in the 3.0 for windows.
I would like an answer to that one, as well. While I have no strong
opinion on frames, viewing it as a matter of personal taste, I strongly
support freedom of choice. Users who dislike frames should NOT be forced
to view them.
> if a site has info
> I want/need and doesn't provide a non-framed alternative, I will
> reluctantly turn them on (in addition to firing off a complaint
> to the webmaster).
You're absolutely correct to complain! There is no reason at all to
require that frames support be present and enabled. Properly used frames
can make a site easier to navigate, but there's nothing that frames provide
that cannot be provided some other way, too. Therefore there is no reason
to require frames without providing alternatives other than sheer
ignorance. However, there is also no reason why they shouldn't be used, so
long as alternatives are supplied.
The primary focus of the web (as I see it) is freedom of choice. HTML was
designed from the start so that the choice of appearance is left in the
hands of the user. The proper use of frames does not impede this!
Improper use of frames often does.
Frames are a tool like any other, which can be used in many ways for many
purposes. There are few tools that cannot be abused. Fire can warm us in
the winter or destroy our homes. A gun can be used to provide food for a
hungry man, or to kill him. Any useful tool that comes to mind can be used
in a manner that is harmful to some degree if someone so chooses, but it is
important to remember that a human being is always responsible for making
that choice. A tool does nothing without a human hand to guide it.
"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools for his mistakes."
Damn, I wish I could remember who said that... :-(
-grinch
s...@anv.net
>I haven't visited the Netscape site recently, but as a VJ++ user I frequent
>the MS Developer's forum, and other parts of their site as well. The MS
>site makes extensive use of frames, although you are correct that they are
>not used on the home page.
>> (Netscape actually used to, but removed it -- clue?)
>They didn't entirely remove it. Their "framed" site had a link to a
>"non-framed" version from day one. The only change they made was to switch
>the default from "framed" to "non-framed."
I suspect that they removed the frames because many people may be
upgrading to their browsers and may not have frames capabilities when
they first go to the site.
>> if a site has info
>> I want/need and doesn't provide a non-framed alternative, I will
>> reluctantly turn them on (in addition to firing off a complaint
>> to the webmaster).
>You're absolutely correct to complain! There is no reason at all to
>require that frames support be present and enabled. Properly used frames
>can make a site easier to navigate, but there's nothing that frames provide
>that cannot be provided some other way, too.
Incorrect. Sow me a site that does not use frames where you can have
the entire menu of the site available at all times. I have yet to see
this done.
>The primary focus of the web (as I see it) is freedom of choice. HTML was
>designed from the start so that the choice of appearance is left in the
>hands of the user. The proper use of frames does not impede this!
>Improper use of frames often does.
I don't necessarily agree with the choice being in the hands of the
users. I think it was created to provide a cross platform means of
exchanging information. And if that wasn't the primary intent, it is
surely what is happening now. You can only provide access for so many
people. It is a waste of time in some cases to make a no frames or
text only version, if the primary function of the site is to provide
graphical information.
And this is not what I wanted to find out by starting this thread. I
want data as to frames preferences.
Nick Austin
st...@the-light.com (Victor Engel) wrote:
>What about HDTV,
What about it? It's like telling someone who only has a gopher
client that the information they want is only available via http.
The technologies are incompatible.
> stereo TV and closed captioning. You need specialized
>TVs for all of these.
I can use my 10-year old television to watch programmes
that include both stereo sound and closed captions. I
just miss out on the luxuries.
Nick.
Victor Engel
s...@anv.net wrote:
>And I started this thread with a purpose. There are some here who
>have said that most of the general public does not like frames. I
>wanted to know where they are getting this data. I received one
>article that turned out to be unusable to support the no frames cause.
>I will debate your preferences if you like, but that is in another
>thread.
My primary reason for not using frames is that they are unreliable. I
get much more broken images and empty documents on framed sites than
on non-framed sites. This is not a complaint about frames as such, and
I'm not sure where the problem lies. It is probably a combination of
1) Poor site design including invalid code, 2) Netscape bugs, 3)
Improper browser installation or incompatibility of some sort.
Additionally, however, I find frames to be slower to load and simply
annoying. A frames site foists a format upon me rather than allowing
me to specify my own format.
But you didn't want my opinion, did you? What you really want is a
reference to a study someone else has done on the subject. If you
can't find one, why not conduct such a study yourself?
Daniel 'Ford' Sohl
s...@anv.net wrote:
: >> (Netscape actually used to [use FRAMEs on their hompage],
: >> but removed it -- clue?)
:
: >They didn't entirely remove it. Their "framed" site had a link to a
: >"non-framed" version from day one. The only change they made was to switch
: >the default from "framed" to "non-framed."
:
: I suspect that they removed the frames because many people may be
: upgrading to their browsers and may not have frames capabilities when
: they first go to the site.
If Netscape wrote their homepage as a FRAMEd and included suitable
NOFRAMES on the main page which linked to other pages which were
suitable for a non-FRAMEd format, then that would suit both the vast
majority of FRAMEd browser-users *and* those who were there to upgrade.
But that's not what NSCP did... I don't see any sign of FRAMEs on
their site at all now...
Victor Engel
I'd like to see results of this survey done on a group of people who
had already been using or had the capability to use a frames-capable
browser for a significant period of time. If the study polled only
newbies who had not had a chance to experience the problems of frames,
I don't see the data as being very significant.
s...@anv.net wrote:
>> I was at the Netscape site, to search for some specific
>>information (BTW - they aren't using frames any more ... is that
>>a clue).
>And most browsers are adding frames support. Is that a clue? It is
>quite possible that Netscape realizes that many people go to their
>site to download their browser. These people may or may not have
>frames capable browsers. So if they had their site optimized using
>frames, their new customers would not be impressed.
>You might be interested in the following information, taken from GVU's
>survey of 6,619 Internet users.
><
>Browser Expected to Use in 12 Months
>Notes:
>This is a new question for the Fifth survey. For this question, we
>asked respondents what browser they expected to be using in 12 months.
>These numbers may be somewhat biased because Netscape provided a link
>to the survey while it was executing. This may have led to a
>disproportional amount of Netscape users responding, so these results
>should be interpreted conservatively.
>Despite the fact that the actual percentage for Netscape might be
>inflated (89.4%), it is clear that it is the dominant Web browser. The
>only other specific browser with a notable percentage was Microsoft's
>Internet Explorer with 3.8%. 5.2% report using some "other" browser
>not listed in the question.
>>
>Now, even though Netscape provided a link to the survey, their nearest
>possible competitor was "other" with 5.2%. They did not say how many
>people came from the Netscape site, but this is still such a wide
>margin that it cannot be ignored.
>This survey is not perfect, but it is better than than data I have
>gotten here.
Alan J. Flavell
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 s...@anv.net wrote:
> And most browsers are adding frames support. Is that a clue?
And the better browsers are adding a switch for disabling frames:
could that be another clue?
> You might be interested in the following information, taken from GVU's
> survey of 6,619 Internet users.
>
> Browser Expected to Use in 12 Months
Can browser users really see that far into the future? Did the survey
ask them what they were using 12 months back??
12 months back I had never heard of Opera. If there is any justice
in the world, then in 12 months time plenty of discerning users will be
using it. Or maybe some other browser that we haven't heard of yet.
The great thing about HTML is that it isn't browser specific. Two
powerful vendors are trying very hard to make it so, but if we the users
keep our wits about us, there's no reason that either of them have to
win. Both of their browsers are capable (modulo a few notorious bugs)
of rendering standard HTML, despite all their proprietary hacks.
--
best regards
Join the WWW cache proxy awareness campaign:
<a href="http://vancouver-webpages.com/CacheNow/">Cache Now!</a>
Colin F Reynolds
In article <54er2q$c...@raven.eva.net>, s...@anv.net writes
>However, I will tell you that I have been a
>part of creating several frames sites, and not a single one has
>received negative feedback. They have received thousands of hits,
>many compliments, awards, but no complaints.
Unfortunately, such statistics do not hold water. You will not get *any*
feedback from the following groups of visitors, both of whom would
otherwise give you the negative feedback you're missing:
1. those who have learned that sites using frames rarely use
the feature to any good advantage, recognising the framed format
loading will simply hit "stop" and go elsewhere;
2. those who are using what you might term "frame-challenged"
browsers(*) will only see "You can get in - so there :P" and
have more important things to do than email the webmaster.
As always, there are lies, d*mn lies, and sadistics.
Let's have some URLs - if you want more feedback, I'm sure that can be
arranged :))
With apologies for straying off topic,
Colin
(*) One man's "frame-challenged browser" is another lady's latest
version of Your Most Popular Browser Of The Month(TM), This features a
new enhanced function in the form of a large, friendly button labelled
"disable frames" in a suitably pleasing font :)
Lester S. Garrett
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:23:42 GMT s...@anv.net wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
> I still stand behind my comment that you are missing a lot of great
> stuff out there because of your personal tastes. . . .
???? A poorly phrased comment perhaps? For as written, that's
absurd. Each individual's "personal tastes" will determine what he
will regard as "great stuff" and what he will find unappealing.
-={lsg}=-
Lester S. Garrett
On 20 Oct 1996 18:40:58 GMT "Grinch" <gri...@whoville.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
> Frames have some very vocal critics,
And relatively few defenders. But then I think you're miscasting this
issue. The principle problem with frames lies in their widespread
misuse (abuse).
> but it is my belief that the largely
> silent majority neither likes or dislikes frames in general, preferring to
> judge the sites they visit individually.
Well, since the silent majority are, as the term suggests, silent, how
you arrive at that conclusion is a puzzlement.
> This seems to be the logical conclusion, even in the absence of hard data.
> If you think about it, it's obvious that the decisions of Microsoft,
> Netscape, et al have little to do with technical merit and everything to do
> with marketing and public opinion. If frames were as universally hated as
> many here have suggested, wouldn't the public hue and cry have forced both
> companies to remove frame support from their browsers, or at least to add
> the ability to turn frame support off? They've done neither.
You are confusing two different, albeit somewhat related issues here.
What a browser may allow you to see need not suggest any positive
endorsement of frames. It simply acknowledges that there is a
capability which is being used and the browser maker, not to be left
out in the cold, is providing a means by which you can see it.
Because a cable company provides you with a means for receiving an
x-rated channel it doesn't follow that they are endorsing that
channel. And if, as has been suggested here, browser companies are
beginning to provide users with the ability to turn frames off, that
suggests that they are indeed aware that there is more than a little
resistance out there, n'cest pas?
> Anyway, what's the big deal? If you don't like frames, don't use them, and
> don't use a browser that supports them. No one is twisting your arm here,
> and forcing you to use or view frames if you don't want to. You go your
> way, I'll go mine, and no harm is done to either of us.
Unfortunately, this mis-casts the issue. Most of those here who
object to the use of frames are not objecting to the use of frames per
se, but rather to the fact that the overwhelming majority of pages on
which they appear constitute an abuse of a capability which can have a
legitimate though limited application. Unfortunatly, your comments
lead one to wonder whether they really mask a broader underlying
issue, viz., a focus on frames as a visual presentation tool rather
than as a means which would further the logical and structural
presentation of the material.
-={lsg}=-
Callie
s...@anv.net wrote:
>This is a new question for the Fifth survey. For this question, we
>asked respondents what browser they expected to be using in 12 months.
>These numbers may be somewhat biased because Netscape provided a link
>to the survey while it was executing. This may have led to a
>disproportional amount of Netscape users responding, so these results
>should be interpreted conservatively.
The proper thing to do would be to disregard all hits from that
site, just as you would ignore all replies to a political survey
phone poll coming from the various party headquarters.
By "providing a link" they are building in a bias, and they
know exactly what it does to the results.
Abigail
On 20 Oct 1996 19:59:57 GMT, Tero Paananen wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
++ In <01bbbeb8$32d80b60$e8df...@sherm.whoville.com> "Grinch" <gri...@whoville.com> writes:
++
++
++ Maybe not forcing, but I do wonder what are people with
++
++ <NOFRAMES>
++ Your browser is inferior, download Netscape NOW!
++ </NOFRAMES>
++
++ (or a variation) thinking of...
Perhaps the same as Netscape was thinking when it showed me:
Your browser does not support frames.
[http://home.netscape.com/comprod/products/navigator/version_3.0/index.html]
It then invited me to download Netscape 3.0
I was of course browsing the page with Navigator 3.0...
Abigail
Ken Bigelow
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[snip]
> I've certainly considered
> adding the word "frame" to the killfile, since such a large proportion
> of postings are complaining about frames, and I'm still not quite sure
> where I would ever need to use them. I tend to assume that my users
> know how to work a browser, with hotlists and Back functions and such,
> and even "clone window" when they get serious. My job is to keep them
> at my site by offering material that interests them - not by trying to
> entrap them in a frameset...
Just to toss a log onto the bonfire ( :-) ), I have seen two basic
classes of applications that I would consider suitable for frames:
1) On a technical site, where a relatively small table of data needs to
be available throughout a long discussion or for exercises. I do *not*
mean a navigation bar or TOC here. True that such a table could be
provided separately for the user to print out, but the page author
cannot assume that the client has access to a printer.
2) Something in the nature of a quiz or exam, where the correct answers
can be placed right beside the user's answers for direct comparison.
I've seen this one done, and consider it reasonable if not overdone.
On the other hand, unfortunately, most frame-oriented sites either go
'way overboard, or else use frames just to hold a title or logo in
place. You've seen some of those sites, no doubt. Does anything remind
you of a kid with a new toy?
--
Ken
Are you interested in |
byte-sized education | http://www.play-hookey.com
over the Internet? |
Arjun Ray
In <326E99...@www.play-hookey.com>,
Ken Bigelow <kbig...@www.play-hookey.com> writes:
| [...] I have seen two basic classes of applications that I would
| consider suitable for frames:
| 1) On a technical site, where a relatively small table of data needs
| to be available throughout a long discussion or for exercises. I do
| *not* mean a navigation bar or TOC here.
This is classic BANNER functionality, perhaps with the extra twist of
the contents being tabular data.
| 2) Something in the nature of a quiz or exam, where the correct
| answers can be placed right beside the user's answers for direct
| comparison.
I'm not sure what "placed right beside" means (the same window? two
windows side by side? dynamic update?), so I can't see how FRAMEs are
necessary to provide such functionality. Could you elaborate?
| Does anything remind you of a kid with a new toy?
Aren't toys for kids?:-)
[ Note: Anyone interested in a technical discussion of FRAMES should
familiarize themselves with the contents of two threads in the HTML
Working Group mailing list archives for 95Q3
<URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-95q3.messages/subject.html>
"Generalizing Banners"
"A proposal for addition to HTML 3.0: Frames"
Numeric references below refer to messages with URLs the same as
above with 'subject' replaced by the four digit number. ]
It's interesting to compare your criteria for "good use" of Frames
with Lou Montulli's original inquiry [0771] and reformulation [0787].
He started by misunderstanding BANNER to have an "embedding" semantic
(as well as erroneously supposing that multiple BANNERs were allowed
in the HTML 3.0 spec -- no surprise, RTFM has always been anathema in
Mountain View), and stated his case as follows:
+ But I think that BANNERs need to be generalized beyond the simple
+ concept for which they are named. It is more desireable to
+ divide the window up into arbitrary configurations [...] With this
+ expressive power it would be possible to emulate almost any existing
+ user interface.
Which seemed to suggest that he was looking for a layout device...
+ Using form elements links and images (server or client side) and a
+ method for having one cell effect changes in other cells you could
+ design new UI's [...]
... with dynamic update capabilities, at the "window" or "frame" level
(though this part wasn't necessarily clear.)
Dan Connolly's detailed response [0777] made the fundamental point
that specifying window configurations wasn't necessarily interoperable
and thus wasn't a good candidate for functionality *in HTML*:
+ what sort of expressive capability can we give to authors without
+ presuming too much about the clients capabilities or the reader's
+ preferences?
Other evident problems with Montulli's idea were Involuntary
Transclusion [0780] and the fact that "compound documents" call for a
separate "aggregator language" [0786] that should be handled through
Content Negotiation for a *new* document type.
Montulli's reformulation [0787] gave three relatively classic examples
of master-detail relationships, which in fact could be expressed via
<LINK> (i.e. with no new tags at all!) [0789], so there was no need to
introduce gratuitous comaptibility problems with other browsers.
The upshot was that the semantics of relationships could be expressed
adequately already, so all that remained was indeed a proposal for a
new fangled layout device.
A month later, Netscape submitted a proposal [1082] via a marketroid
(i.e. someone manifestly incompetent to discuss *technical* issues.)
The subsequent discussion revealed that they hadn't really thought
about *any* of the substantive issues raised or alternatives proposed
in the previous month.
Par for the course.
Cheers,
ar
Roy Cutler
considered
>> adding the word "frame" to the killfile, since such a large
proportion
>> of postings are complaining about frames, and I'm still not quite
sure
>> where I would ever need to use them. I tend to assume that my
users
>> know how to work a browser, with hotlists and Back functions and
>such,
>> and even "clone window" when they get serious. My job is to keep
>them
>> at my site by offering material that interests them - not by trying
to
>> entrap them in a frameset...
>
>classes of applications that I would consider suitable for frames:
>
>1) On a technical site, where a relatively small table of data needs
to
>be available throughout a long discussion or for exercises. I do
*not*
>provided separately for the user to print out, but the page author
>cannot assume that the client has access to a printer.
>
answers
>can be placed right beside the user's answers for direct comparison.
>
>On the other hand, unfortunately, most frame-oriented sites either go
>'way overboard, or else use frames just to hold a title or logo in
remind
>you of a kid with a new toy?
I certainly agree with these sentiments. They made me think of
another possible use. How about a glossary? Difficult or technical
words could be marked in the main frame text and when clicked would
give the definition in the glossary frame.
In any event I think this is a good discussion as I have come to
really dislike the vast majority of frame applications that I have
seen.
Roy Cutler
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
Rent A Geek
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 04:33:17 GMT, st...@the-light.com (Victor Engel)
wrote:
>
>What about HDTV, stereo TV and closed captioning. You need specialized
>TVs for all of these.
Um, but if you don't have a specialized TV, you can still watch the
plain old show, without the extras, that's the point that was being
made.
Rent A Geek http://www.rentageek.com
Your Online Source For Computer Professionals
Grinch
Alan J. Flavell <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.95.96101...@hpplus07.cern.ch>...
> On 18 Oct 1996, Grinch wrote:
> > The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. It's a simple enough
matter
> > to set up server side includes ...
> What you say is in theory correct, but I don't see that theory carried
> into practice often enough.
Which is a shame, because it means that lots of people are choosing to
ignore the frame-challenged and frame-annoyed because they think it's too
difficult to do otherwise.
For those who are unaware of the technique, here's my take on it. YMMV.
This only works if your server supports SSI. If it uses an extension other
than .shtml to indicate a server-parsed document, you'll have to adjust the
filenames.
Store the body of your document in, say "body.txt" (Just to be pedantic
about it, since it's not a "complete" HTML document, it shouldn't be called
"body.html")
Set up your frameset document as "main.shtml" In the noframes section, use
the SSI include directive to include body.txt.
In the document loaded into the main frame, use the SSI include directive
to include body.txt.
Voila! You have both a framed and non-framed site sourced from a single
file.
> And the de facto (read: mass market) standard can be woefully inadequate
Can be? You're being generous. s/can be/is/g
> if you've ever seen what an advanced browser can do - with a
> straightforwardly marked up HTML document, a tastefully chosen
> preferences setup, [and optionally a style sheet].
Unfortunately, finances permit me to use only a single computer. That
means, in order to be able to find affordable software, I'm practically
forced to use a Wintel PC. I use IE3 for its stylesheet support, but you
are correct that it is quite deficient in many other areas.
I would very much like to see a browser that basically uses a "default
stylesheet" that defines the appearance of EVERY SINGLE TAG. For a browser
that already support stylesheets, it would be trivial to load one off your
local disk and parse it to determine your default appearance settings.
> > The official standards bodies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
> Ah yes, the ultimate weapon.
Meaning...?
Think about it. The current standards approval process is the same one
that got abused to the point that many of the Netscape hacks became de
facto standards. The W3C was forced to recognize that many of the NSHTML
tags were widespread and unlikely to disappear, and any new standard that
did not include them would probably be universally ignored. They were
forced to include crap like <font> in Wilbur by the fact that the major
browsers simply would have ignored the standard had they not included it.
Do we really want more of the same?
A very large part of the problem, I think, is that there is no reference
implementation available to the largest segment of the mass market; i.e. PC
& Mac users. While UNIX is widely used as a server platform, the W3C needs
to recognize that PCs and Macs are far more widespread than UNIX systems as
clients, and begin developing their testbed browsers on those platforms.
They need to market their browser every bit as aggressively as the others,
with "Amaya Now!" icons and all the rest.
> > You chose to use a poorly-supported platform,
>
> Poorly supported for what? As it happens, I don't run an Amiga myself
> (though I do run a Psion); but I see no reason why the Amia should
> be denied access to HTML merely because you in your wisdom decree that
> it's a poorly-supported platform. Poorly supported for what, pray?
Sigh. I phrased that quite poorly. Let me try again.
This is about the person who earlier was complainig that he couldn't use
the latest version of Navigator on his Amiga, and has nothing to do with
denying access to HTML. Properly designed HTML is, of course, accessible
to just about anything with a CPU, including the aforementioned Amiga,
VIC-20, or Lisa.
If it is important to you that you be able to run the latest software, then
you should have the latest hardware. If you make a decision to use an
outdated Amiga, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your
decision; i.e. poor software support for your chosen platform.
You can reasonably expect to be able to view (or hear, or whatever) the
body text of a well-designed web page on just about any computer, but
expecting every new feature (Java, frames, etc.) to be implemented on an
out of date platform is ludicrous. I don't expect my '85 Corolla to
achieve 150mph, and I don't expect an Amiga to be capable of everything my
686 PC can do.
--
Just my own $.05. (Inflation, you know...)
-grinch
Arjun Ray
In <01bbc1f2$0f88f1a0$2bf0...@sherm.whoville.com>, "Grinch"
<gri...@whoville.com> writes:
| Alan J. Flavell <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote in article
| <Pine.HPP.3.95.96101...@hpplus07.cern.ch>...
| > On 18 Oct 1996, Grinch wrote:
| I would very much like to see a browser that basically uses a
| "default stylesheet" that defines the appearance of EVERY SINGLE
| TAG.
Not tag. Element. Tag-soup browsers have been the bane of the Web, and
what they do can be described *precisely* as a hardcoded stylesheet
for every single *tag* (e.g. a '</P>' produces an extra line. This is
"advanced" technology, it seems...)
There's a *reason* why CSS has 'H1{...}' instead of '<H1>{...}'.
|>> The official standards bodies need to wake up and smell the
|>> coffee.
|> Ah yes, the ultimate weapon.
| Think about it.
I suggest you read about it. RFC 1602. The IETF home page. The HTML
Working Group Charter. The HTML WG mailing list archives. The WWW-talk
mailing list archives. There's megabytes of material to confute
armchair theorizing -- and FUD.
| The current standards approval process is the same one that got
| abused
Abused, yes (modulo the 'approval' bit.) But by whom and how?
| to the point that many of the Netscape hacks became de facto
| standards.
That's using persuasive definitions. Please note that Netscape is a
*proprietary* program. There are no published specs for what it does.
People choose to rely on its observed behavior *at their own risk*.
Invoking the term "standard" in this context is an underhand way to
evade responsibility for that fact and to blot out the reality of a
situation characterized by a *lack* of standards and brazen lies to
the contrary.
| The W3C was forced to recognize that many of the NSHTML tags were
| widespread and unlikely to disappear, and any new standard that did
| not include them would probably be universally ignored.
Please note that the W3C is *not* a standards body, let alone an
"official" one. It's an industry consortium funded by its members.
It's "mission statement" is coordination of efforts *towards*
standards. W3C staff *volunteer* to organize interest groups (via
mailing lists) and assume a "leadership" role: it's known as being
pro-active. But the basic premises, as for the Internet in general,
are participation and consensus: the W3C is not *obliged* (or worse,
duty bound) to produce "standards" (in reality, proposals) regardless.
| They were forced to include crap like <font> in Wilbur by the fact
| that the major browsers simply would have ignored the standard had
| they not included it.
Please get your facts straight. Wilbur is a *report*. It is not a
proposal, far less a standard. The W3C is circulating this report
among its members for ratification, as part of its normal ongoing
coordinative activities. To date, there have been no suggestions even
to begin the process of submitting it to the IETF. For a very simple
reason: the IETF *knows* that no consensus exists, and that no
*non*-proprietary implementations exist for that report. (Read Section
5 of RFC 1602, and then read up on what Sun did with NFS.) Even as a
draft proposal, Wilbur has *no chance*.
| Do we really want more of the same?
Speak for yourself. When Netscape says "We support open standards", do
you remain silent? Do you hide behind de facto this or that?
| A very large part of the problem, I think, is that there is no
| reference implementation available to the largest segment of the
| mass market; i.e. PC & Mac users.
Very good point. It's primary consequence is that a standard is
impossible. Yet that's what everybody seems desperate to evade with
all this FUD about "de facto" and what not.
| While UNIX is widely used as a server platform, the W3C needs
| to recognize that PCs and Macs are far more widespread than UNIX
| systems as clients, and begin developing their testbed browsers on
| those platforms.
Why the W3C? Look at the W3C membership list.
| They need to market their browser every bit as aggressively as the
| others, with "Amaya Now!" icons and all the rest.
I don't think "marketing" is within the purview of the W3C's charter.
| If it is important to you that you be able to run the latest
| software, then you should have the latest hardware.
Eh? All you need is an implementation. But what comes before such
software? Can you spell "specifications"?
| You can reasonably expect to be able to view (or hear, or whatever)
| the body text of a well-designed web page on just about any
| computer, but expecting every new feature (Java, frames, etc.) to be
---------------------------------------------------^^^^^^
| implemented on an out of date platform is ludicrous.
Expecting *proprietary* "features" to be implemented is ludicrous.
What was your point, again?
:ar
Robert G. Eldridge
ar...@nmds.com (Arjun Ray) wrote:
>In <326E99...@www.play-hookey.com>,
>Ken Bigelow <kbig...@www.play-hookey.com> writes:
(cut)
>| 2) Something in the nature of a quiz or exam, where the correct
>| answers can be placed right beside the user's answers for direct
>| comparison.
>I'm not sure what "placed right beside" means (the same window? two
>windows side by side? dynamic update?), so I can't see how FRAMEs are
>necessary to provide such functionality. Could you elaborate?
Hello Arjun,
I think, with all modesty, that Ken may have been referring to the
frame layout that I suggested he have a look at for its possible use
in a more serious educational use than the fun use that I put it to.
Have a look yourself at
http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/trivia/quiz.html
Robert G. Eldridge Cardiff NSW Australia
robert....@hunterlink.net.au
http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/
s...@anv.net
>Store the body of your document in, say "body.txt" (Just to be pedantic
>about it, since it's not a "complete" HTML document, it shouldn't be called
>"body.html")
>Set up your frameset document as "main.shtml" In the noframes section, use
>the SSI include directive to include body.txt.
>In the document loaded into the main frame, use the SSI include directive
>to include body.txt.
>Voila! You have both a framed and non-framed site sourced from a single
>file.
Can you supply an example of this?
If this can be done, then there really is no reason you can't use
frames at will, because the maintnance would be little. I would not
have thought of that technique.
I am beginning to enjoy your posts. Not because you support or don't
support frames, because I still can't tell. Your posts are
intelligent and insightful.
Later,
Steve
Arjun Ray
In <54plsc$e...@ghostgum.hunterlink.net.au>,
robert....@hunterlink.net.au (Robert G. Eldridge) writes:
| ar...@nmds.com (Arjun Ray) wrote:
|> In <326E99...@www.play-hookey.com>,
|> Ken Bigelow <kbig...@www.play-hookey.com> writes:
|>| 2) Something in the nature of a quiz or exam, where the correct
|>| answers can be placed right beside the user's answers for direct
|>| comparison.
|> I'm not sure what "placed right beside" means (the same window? two
|> windows side by side? dynamic update?), so I can't see how FRAMEs
|> are necessary to provide such functionality. Could you elaborate?
| I think, with all modesty, that Ken may have been referring to the
| frame layout that I suggested he have a look at for its possible use
| in a more serious educational use than the fun use that I put it to.
| http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/trivia/quiz.html
Yes, that's a very reasonable interpretation. But it doesn't answer
the question: why are FRAMEs *necessary* for the functionality? (i.e.
it's not enough to show "with frames I can do this"; it's also
necessary to show (a) "without frames I can't do this" and (b) "this
is the only way to do anything of the kind at all".) It's all too easy
to conflate purpose (or semantics) with implementation.
This is a good time to review two messages to the HTML Working Group
mailing list in August '95: Lou Montulli's description of the
functionality envisioned
<URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-messages.95q3/0787.html>
and Roy Fielding's demonstration of how to encode the essential
semantics without recourse to new tags (in fact exploiting attributes
that go back to some of the *earliest* HTML specs but are relatively
unknown now from *lack* of implementation -- the usual story.)
<URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-messages.95q3/0789.html>
For instance, the *structure* of your trivia quiz maps almost directly
onto Example 3 in [0787], a three-tier master-detail relationship (the
only difference being that your third tier detail is actually only an
"alternate view" or aggregation of some of the information in the
second tier.) With LINKs and As, a completely dumb browser can still
provide a minimal interface to all relevant information with no more
than a single window and its "back button": it will work off the As
only and miss the extra relational information in the LINKs. A smarter
browser need only grok the notions of "navigator" and "review" links
to provide an *appropriate* interface, e.g. popup windows on a smart
terminal, or separate windows on a graphical "desktop", or other
implementations that may never occur to you or me -- or frames for
that matter.
Your trivia quiz is *locked* into the FRAMEs *implementation*, without
possibility of alternative presentations. FRAMEs markup is procedural:
a browser is told what to do, without being told why. OTOH, describing
things -- saying what they are -- allows for *optimization* to the
browser's environment. The *loss* of information implicit in the
FRAMEs crypto-spec marks it as nothing more than a layout device for
pixel-pushers.
Cheers,
ar
Grinch
Arjun Ray <ar...@nmds.com> wrote in article
<54p8pn$f...@client2.news.psi.net>...
> what they do can be described *precisely* as a hardcoded stylesheet
> for every single *tag*
Which is why it would be trivial for a browser that supports stylesheets to
load the defaults from an external file instead of hardcoding them into the
executable. The code to load the stylesheet is already there; all that
needs done is to provide a filename for the default.
Imagine for a moment that users could edit their default stylesheet, and
individually specify how their browser would render each element. Wouldn't
that strongly discourage authors from depending on specific behaviour? Not
only would each program render differently by default, each installed copy
of the software could easily render the document in a different manner
entirely!
Remember, the current fad of indenting with <blockquote> et al came about
because most graphical browsers actually do render it them way.
> Abused, yes (modulo the 'approval' bit.) But by whom and how?
An opportunistic member of the NCSA Mosaic team (we won't mention names)
saw that he could manipulate the standards process to make a lot of money.
He developed and proposed a number of "enhancements" to the current HTML
spec. (I don't believe it was a standard at that point), and as required
for the review process for all proposed standards, he provided a reference
implementation of his proposals. Then, he aggressively marketed his
implementation to the point where it was by far the most popular browser in
use.
This sort of aggressive marketing was unprecedented, at least on the
internet. Never before has someone had a major financial stake in seeing
to it that their proposals made it into the approved standards, and never
before has someone worked so hard at making that happen.
> Please note that Netscape is a
> *proprietary* program. There are no published specs for what it does.
> People choose to rely on its observed behavior *at their own risk*.
Agreed. My employer is a web service provider, and we service over three
hundred virtual domains using Netscape server products. I'm not boasting
here, I just want to illustrate the magnitude of the administrative and
configuration headaches. If you think that finding documentation for their
browsers is difficult, try finding concrete documentation on their servers
some time!
> Invoking the term "standard" in this context is an underhand way to
> evade responsibility for that fact and to blot out the reality of a
> situation characterized by a *lack* of standards and brazen lies to
> the contrary.
Which is why I did not use that term. I used the term "de facto standard",
which has a specific meaning. It means that, although not formally or
officially defined as a standard, it has become so widely used as to be an
unofficial standard of sorts. Obviously, the term "unofficial standard" is
an oxymoron, hence my use of the term "de facto standard" instead.
> But the basic premises, as for the Internet in general,
> are participation and consensus:
And there lies the core of the problem as I see it. This system, while it
worked quite well for over twenty years, breaks down when commercial
interests come into play. When all concerned parties share the common goal
of finding the best solution to a given problem, the system works quite
well. If, however, each party is primarily concerned with his or her own
best interests rather than those of the net as a whole, the system breaks
down.
> Speak for yourself. When Netscape says "We support open standards", do
> you remain silent?
No, I argue about it on usenet... :-)
Seriously, however. When a company such as NS can remain true to the
letter of the standards process, and still thoroughly abuse the spirit of
it, does that not indicate a flaw in the process itself? The current
process was designed for an internet where commercial interests were not
present; is it any wonder, then, that it does not take them into account
and is wide open to abuse by them?
> Very good point. It's primary consequence is that a standard is
> impossible. Yet that's what everybody seems desperate to evade with
> all this FUD about "de facto" and what not.
I'm not evading anything. I've got a mental image of an internet of say,
five years hence, where the standards process has become a popularity
contest instead of a legitimate attempt at finding the best solution to a
given set of problems. It's a scary picture.
> Why the W3C? Look at the W3C membership list.
Good point. Why, then, has a body composed largely of PC & Mac software
vendors produced a reference implementation for their latest proposal only
for the UNIX platform? Curious...
> I don't think "marketing" is within the purview of the W3C's charter.
Perhaps not, but how else can they compete with the proprietary solutions
offered by commercial browser vendors? If their proposals are universally
ignored by the masses of people stampeding to download the latest version
of Navigator, their work has been wasted.
> | If it is important to you that you be able to run the latest
> | software, then you should have the latest hardware.
> What was your point, again?
This particular point actually had very little to do with the rest of the
message, and was aimed at the individual who complained that Navigator 3
was not available for his or her Amiga. I stated that obsolete hardware
cannot be reasonably expected to run the latest software, and if one
chooses to use such hardware, one shouldn't complain about the dearth of
software available for it. It was basically about accepting responsibility
for the consequences of one's own actions.
Grinch
s...@anv.net wrote in article <54qk5m$8...@raven.eva.net>...
> Can you supply an example of this?
Attached to this message you'll find a bare-bones example of this
technique, in four files. Note that you'll need access to a server that
has SSI enabled to make use of them.
frametest.shtml is the main document that contains the <frameset> &
<noframes>
frame-one.shtml & frame-two.shtml are loaded into the two frames.
body.txt is included in all three via SSI.
Sorry for the attachments folks, but it is relevant, the files are small,
and I think it's the best way to illustrate this.
> Not because you support or don't
> support frames, because I still can't tell.
I neither love nor hate them. I've seen "framed" sites that were hideous,
but that's the fault of the author, not the tool. I see no reason why
authors should not be able to use frames, so long as users who do not wish
to use the framed presentation can still access a non-framed alternative if
they so choose.
--
Just my own $.05. (Inflation, you know...)
-grinch
end
end
end