Question About Frames Usage?

[jake]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

In message <bsusi3$1lk1b$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>, Harlan
Messinger <h.messinger@co mcast.net> writes[color=blue]
>
>"jake" <jake@gododdin. demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:mqRD4PmHO g8$Ewis@gododdi n.demon.co.uk.. .[color=green]
>> In message <vv3928s3cabg31 @corp.supernews .com>, Peter Foti
>> <peterf@systoli cNOSPAMnetworks .com> writes[color=darkred]
>> >"JohnnyCJohnny " <johnwc@patmedi a.net> wrote in message
>> >news:cd2ccfd9. 0312300750.1ae9 f16a@posting.go ogle.com...
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >IE is the leading user agent these days... but that doesn't mean it's ok[/color][/color]
>to[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >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[/color][/color]
>with[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >disabilities . For example, a blind person who uses an aural browser to[/color][/color]
>read[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >the page to him/her... how do you think frames would be handled in that
>> >situation? Not very well.[/color]
>>
>> Actually, a modern screen-reader/voice browser doesn't have any problems
>> with navigating a frames-based site. On entering the site I can ask for
>> frames details and be told (a) how many frames (b) what they are.
>>
>> I can then simply toggle between frames.
>>
>> So. There's no real problems ...... just the annoyance of having to
>> toggle between frames -- especially if it's the classic 3-frame site:
>> (1) Company/Organisation banner
>> (2) Menu
>> (3) Main content.[/color]
>
>Which, now that aural browsers are handling frames, is probably even better.
>Without frames, you have the annoyance of sitting through the banner and top
>links before getting to the content, unless the developer has put a "skip
>navigation" link at the top. And then, when you *want* to get back to the
>navigation, you have to go to the links list, or go to the top of the page
>and tab up to them, which isn't any easier than going to the links *frame*.
>With the frames approach, the banner is *always* out of the way, and the nav
>links are out of the way until you want them, at which time they are easily
>reached.
>[/color]
[snip]
That's an interesting way to look at it ;-)

Now, if only authors of frames-based sites knew about titling frames so
that users can tell what they are and how they relate to each other
........

regards.
--
Jake

[jake]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

In message <cd2ccfd9.03123 10800.127624d3@ posting.google. com>,
JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedi a.net> writes
[snip]

[color=blue]
> I'm not designing an ecommerce site that needs to
>reach 99.9% of web users. It's just a run-of-the-mill company website
>(which is designed to inform our potential customers about our
>company) that probably gets only around 1,000 hits a year. If frames
>are the best solution to my navigation problems, then that's what I'll
>go with.[/color]

[snip]

In which case, as you're the author, go with what works best in *your*
situation.

If your frames-based site delivers the goods, why worry?


regards.

--
Jake

[Neal]

OT: Re: Question About Frames Usage?


"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote in message
news:4jDIb.1865 47$2We1.1064@ne ws04.bloor.is.n et.cable.rogers .com...[color=blue]
> Opera has an option to disable frames.[/color]

Where do you find that option?

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> Without frames, you have the annoyance of sitting through the banner
> and top links before getting to the content,[/color]

Which is why I've always been opposed to beginning normal content
pages with that kind of extraneous clutter.
[color=blue]
> unless the developer has put a "skip navigation" link at the top.[/color]

Which IMHO is just an admission that the author realised that their
design was suboptimal - but insisted on following the "convention al
page" design regardless.

Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but I'm
not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers have a
navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>, as well as a keycommand
to go to the foot of the page where navigation links can be found (we
hope).

(Of course, pages which are designed to be primarily navigation pages
are a different matter. In the foregoing, I'm talking about pages
whose primary purpose is to present some joined-up content.)

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:
[color=blue]
> You need to get a friggin life.[/color]

Yeah, the killfile was waiting for that.

[Steve Pugh]

Re: OT: Re: Question About Frames Usage?

"Neal" <neal@spamrcn.c om> wrote:[color=blue]
>"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Opera has an option to disable frames.[/color]
>
>Where do you find that option?
>[/color]

Preferences > Page Style offers the options
Enable frames
Enable inline frames
Show active frame border

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Brian]

Re: OT: Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
> "C A Upsdell" wrote
>[color=green]
>>Opera has an option to disable frames.[/color]
>
> Where do you find that option?[/color]

Preferences > Page style

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

[Neal]

Re: OT: Re: Question About Frames Usage?

Thanks guys

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?


"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4 .53.03123117082 10.16883@ppepc5 6.ph.gla.ac.uk. ..[color=blue]
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Without frames, you have the annoyance of sitting through the banner
> > and top links before getting to the content,[/color]
>
> Which is why I've always been opposed to beginning normal content
> pages with that kind of extraneous clutter.
>[color=green]
> > unless the developer has put a "skip navigation" link at the top.[/color]
>
> Which IMHO is just an admission that the author realised that their
> design was suboptimal - but insisted on following the "convention al
> page" design regardless.[/color]

Web design is not a battle. Making a design serve double duty isn't an
admission of anything, and "optimality " does not require designing with
*only* the lowest common denominator in mind.
[color=blue]
>
> Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but I'm
> not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers have a
> navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>,[/color]

I remember reading about this like two or three years ago and haven't seen
anything about it since. I don't even remember what it's called. Give me a
hint? I'd like to look it up on W3C. What browsers support it? What browsers
(and, therefore, which users) does one have to foresake in order to use it?
Do I have any control over how the resulting links look in a graphical
browser?
[color=blue]
> as well as a keycommand
> to go to the foot of the page where navigation links can be found (we
> hope).[/color]

How do sighted users know that there are nav links at the bottom? Optimality
absolutely requires that you not make your users hunt for the tools they
need to use your site. That's why people put them at the top.

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in
news:bsv82n$1rf mv$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but
>> I'm not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers
>> have a navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>,[/color]
>
> I remember reading about this like two or three years ago and haven't
> seen anything about it since. I don't even remember what it's called.
> Give me a hint? I'd like to look it up on W3C. What browsers support
> it? What browsers (and, therefore, which users) does one have to
> foresake in order to use it? Do I have any control over how the
> resulting links look in a graphical browser?[/color]

At least Opera 7.x, recent Mozillas, and Lynx support it. Browsers that
don't support it simply ignore it, so you aren't excluding anyone unless
you use it as the sole means of site navigation (which you shouldn't).
Browsers that support it usually display the links in a toolbar or sidebar
which is part of the browser chrome and is therefore outside your control.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Question About Frames Usage?

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> Web design is not a battle.[/color]

Shouldn't be, I agree
[color=blue]
> Making a design serve double duty isn't an admission of anything,[/color]

Web designs serve multiple duties, whether we intend it or not. My
aim as author is to co-operate with those multiple duties, rather than
trying to impose my own ideas of what a web site ought to be for.

But I stand by my previous remark, nevertheless. That "jump to
content"-type link is a workaround for a problem that would have been
better not created in the first place.
[color=blue]
> and "optimality " does not require designing with
> *only* the lowest common denominator in mind.[/color]

Oh dear. I can see that my point has been comprehensively missed.
Well, maybe someone else can explain it better.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but I'm
> > not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers have a
> > navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>,[/color]
>
> I remember reading about this like two or three years ago and haven't seen
> anything about it since. I don't even remember what it's called.[/color]

For example, http://www.subotnik.net/html/link
[color=blue]
> What browsers support it?[/color]

For example, MSIE 5.* (see the cited web page for an explanation)
[color=blue]
> What browsers (and, therefore, which users) does one have to
> foresake in order to use it?[/color]

None, since it's an optional extra. By all means provide equivalent
links by <a href=...> in your page - but preferably not in a way
which obstructs access to the page's substantive content.
[color=blue]
> Do I have any control over how the resulting links look in a graphical
> browser?[/color]

Nope: and that's not a bug, it's a (useability) feature.
[color=blue]
> Optimality absolutely requires that you not make your users hunt for
> the tools they need to use your site.[/color]

Quite right. Their Back button is always at hand, and I'd do nothing
to interfere with that.
[color=blue]
> That's why people put them at the top.[/color]

If the page is what they want, then they want to read its substantive
content first.

If the page is not what they want, then I assume they'd want to leave
(e.g to the search index which brought them to my page) to see if they
can find something which better meets their needs.

The stuff that just happens to be elsewhere on my site is of only
passing relevance. If they're interested in composing proper alt
texts, why would I want to direct them to my page about orange
marmalade; or vice versa? If they want to see what else I have on
offer, the tools are there, and in no way hidden, but I'm not going to
hit them in the face with them.

Happy new year.