Question About Frames Usage?

[JohnnyCJohnny]

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

Thanks

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

JohnnyCJohnny wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
> that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
> IE?[/color]

Lynx! ;-)

--
Stanimir

[Peter Foti]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

"JohnnyCJoh nny" <johnwc@patmedi a.net> wrote in message
news:cd2ccfd9.0 312300750.1ae9f 16a@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
> that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
> IE?[/color]

IE is the leading user agent these days... but that doesn't mean it's ok to
use frames (or to write HTML for IE only). If you code your site
semantically correct, then your site will be more accessible to people with
disabilities. For example, a blind person who uses an aural browser to read
the page to him/her... how do you think frames would be handled in that
situation? Not very well.

Regards,
Peter Foti

[StardogChampion]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

"JohnnyCJoh nny" <johnwc@patmedi a.net> wrote in message
news:cd2ccfd9.0 312300750.1ae9f 16a@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
> that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
> IE?
>
> Thanks[/color]

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[Brian]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

JohnnyCJohnny wrote:[color=blue]
> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use
> browsers that are Frames compatible?[/color]

In the context of the www, I'd say that any assumption about your
visitors' browsing environment is unwise.
[color=blue]
> What are most people using these days? IE?[/color]

Who knows? Better question: why fret about something over which you
have no control? Design correctly, and let the browsers sort out the
details.

Some hints:

1. frames are rarely a good solution to any problem.
< http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/ >

2. Lynx doesn't do frames.

3. Google "sees" things largely as Lynx does.

4. Opera, a very advanced, modern ua, has a "no frames" browsing option.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Keith Bowes]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
>> that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days? IE?[/color]
>
>
> Lynx! ;-)
>[/color]

But Lynx is frames compatible. It displays the frames as links, and is
quite usable if the author gives the frames good name (not left, right,
bottom, framea, etc). Unfortunately, it doesn't support the "title"
attribute, which could give an even higher degree of accessibility.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
> that are Frames compatible?[/color]

It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
are noframes-incompatible.

If you're still crazy enough to insist on using frames (their
inventor, i.e Netscape, seems to have given up using frames on their
own web pages, except for special purposes, within less than a year of
plonking down this misbegotten design on the W3C as a fait accompli).
[color=blue]
> What are most people using these days?[/color]

Something which has deliberately ruled itself out as a WWW browser, by
intentionally violating mandatory requirements of the relevant W3C and
IETF specifications.
[color=blue]
> IE?[/color]

You might say that...

But nevertheless, with a bit of author consideration, IE is capable of
browsing properly-made WWW pages, so there's no need to go designing
special page versions for it. After all, most of the folks who are
using IE have never made an explicit choice. They're accustomed to
what it does. If you want to also appeal to a discerning audience,
then design for the WWW, with due consideration of the letter and
spirit of their specifications, including the WAI. Doing frames
properly is a lot of work - the result still rates to be inferior.

Presumably, search engines are of interest to you also? After all, a
large proportion of web pages are found via a search engine. If a
would-be reader never finds your page in the first place, it really
doesn't matter whether their browser supports your frames or not.

--
"Sorry, your browser doesn't support frames" - dumb web site
"Sorry, your web author doesn't support frames" - me.

[Brian]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Keith Bowes wrote:[color=blue]
> Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use
>>> browsers that are Frames compatible? What are most people
>>> using these days? IE?[/color]
>>
>> Lynx! ;-)[/color]
>
> But Lynx is frames compatible. It displays the frames as links, and
> is quite usable if the author gives the frames good name (not left,
> right, bottom, framea, etc).[/color]

Fair enough.
[color=blue]
> Unfortunately, it doesn't support the "title" attribute, which
> could give an even higher degree of accessibility.[/color]

I happen to dislike its rendering of iframe. It shows a link to the
frame source in addition to the iframe element's content, but a
properly authored document already has a link to the src, with
suitable link text, as the iframe content. It leads to redundant
information. I'd guess the same issue arises with the noframe element.

Nitpicking, yes, but these things bug me.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
> "Sorry, your browser doesn't support frames" - dumb web site
> "Sorry, your web author doesn't support frames" - me.[/color]

rotfl. Good one, Mr. Flavell.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
>>that are Frames compatible?[/color]
>
> It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
> are noframes-incompatible.[/color]

I can't quite parse the double negative there. Opera, e.g., seems to
be capable of rendering the noframes element when in no-frames mode.
And Lynx has no trouble with noframes content. It appears that I have
misunderstood you.
[color=blue]
> "Sorry, your browser doesn't support frames" - dumb web site
> "Sorry, your web author doesn't support frames" - me.[/color]

rotfl. Good one, Mr. Flavell. (Your sig separator is fine, of
course; I pasted that in because I found it so funny.)

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[David Dorward]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> 2. Lynx doesn't do frames.[/color]

Yes it does - it sees them as links.
[color=blue]
> 3. Google "sees" things largely as Lynx does.[/color]

Orphan pages! What fun!

OK, with good <noframes> content and a smart robots.txt you can avoid this
problem.... it just takes a _lot_ of work and uses up about double[1] the
bandwidth of avoiding frames in the first place.

[1] Not counting style sheets, JavaScript, images, etc

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[David Dorward]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> I happen to dislike its [lynx] rendering of iframe. It shows a link
> to the
> frame source in addition to the iframe element's content, but a
> properly authored document already has a link to the src, with
> suitable link text, as the iframe content. It leads to redundant
> information.[/color]

A properly authored document is likely to have the content in the element
rather then a redundent link.

However, lynx is designed for the real world, and the real world includes
more then a few documents which are not authored properly. Turning the
<iframe> tag into a link is the best it can hope for to deal with most
iframes out there.

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[David Dorward]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
>> are noframes-incompatible.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I can't quite parse the double negative there.[/color]

Most web users are using browsers which are capable of easily accessing a
website which does not use frames.

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Brian wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
> > are noframes-incompatible.[/color]
>
> I can't quite parse the double negative there. Opera, e.g., seems to
> be capable of rendering the noframes element when in no-frames mode.
> And Lynx has no trouble with noframes content.[/color]

And "most web users" are not using Opera nor Lynx. QED.
[color=blue]
> It appears that I have misunderstood you.[/color]

I don't think you did! "most web users" need extra author
consideration if they are to be empowered to access the no-frames
variant of the web site. Some of the others (can we call them the
"discerning minority"?) have the ability (and maybe also the
knowledge) to be able to insist on the noframed version, under their
own control, without help from the page author.

Sure: if the no-frames variant is nothing more than "Sorry, your
browser doesn't support frames", then all bets are off anyway, as I
hinted before.

cheers

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, David Dorward wrote:
[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:[color=green]
> > Alan J. Flavell wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
> >> are noframes-incompatible.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > I can't quite parse the double negative there.[/color]
>
> Most web users are using browsers which are capable of easily accessing a
> website which does not use frames.[/color]

What you just said is true enough, in itself, but if that was intended
to be a translation of what I meant, then I'd have to deny it.

What I meant was "most web users are using browsers which cannot,
without additional help from the page author, access the noframes
variant of a site which uses frames". (Exceptions, as has already
been pointed out, are Opera and Lynx).