Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • rf

    #46
    Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

    dorayme <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in news:doraymeRid This-
    6933A0.12085625 042008@web.aioe .org:

    [frames]
    You don't get it do you? An existing framed site has a right to life.
    You should all top denigrating them to the point of framicide.
    You don't get it, do you?

    If a page can not be indexed correctly by the search engines then that page
    is IMHO terribly broken. And google itself state quite up front that they
    have trouble indexing framed pages.

    If a page can not be referred to by name (instead of, say, "go to
    example.com and press the [this is the page I mean] menu button) then that
    page is terribly broken.

    If an existing page is broken then it should be fixed. That way somebody
    may be actaully able to find it some day.

    If it is a new page (as I suspect) then it should not be using frames for
    all the reasons discussed at length all over usenet[1]. I doubt this is a
    legacy site, given the actual question and the source. However as the OP
    appears to be a drive by google groper I guess we'll never know :-)



    Lets de-cloud the issue by considering the OP's question.

    OP has dug himself into a trench by using frames and suddenly wanting to do
    what everybody else does and that is, I presume, disable or otherwise
    change the menu item for the current page. Well, everybody else does this
    server side with modern technology, and it is a blindingly simple task,
    just an if statement around each echo that builds the menu, elapsed time to
    write: 10 minutes (PHP assumed).

    What the OP wants is very difficult to do with a standard framed page.

    One could throw a truckload of client side javascript at it but to what
    end? Simpler to write those if statements, which work for 100% of the
    viewers.

    It would be quite difficult to do server side. At the time the server is
    asked to provide the menu "page" it has no idea at all which other "pages"
    are being pulled to make up the framed page. One could perform all sorts of
    skullduggery with sessions and what not to determine this, or perhaps build
    a seperate frameset for each and every "page" on the site, pulling in a
    different menu "page" for each (posibly via get variables), but to what
    end. The energy expended in all of this would be far greater than that
    required to simply serve up a suitable non-framed page using the odd if
    statement. Probably greater than re-writing the site without frames.

    Given the OP's requirements, as stated in his post, and all else aside,
    frames are *not* the correct tool for this job.


    [1] For any benifit you can possibly come up with *for* using frames it can
    be quite easily demonstrated that said benifit can be easily achieved
    *without* using frames. Including the dreaded use-up-canvas "fixed" menu.

    --
    Richard
    Killing all google groups posts
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

    Comment

    • rf

      #47
      Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

      dorayme <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in news:doraymeRid This-
      62FF4C.14521225 042008@web.aioe .org:
      In article <xNOdnXqoZPWA0I zVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn Z2d@comcast.com >,
      Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.ne twrote:
      >
      >As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
      >their choices in so choosing.
      >
      There is an issue in this that has nothing to do with allowing. It is
      about the appropriateness of bringing out the big guns and blazing away
      at the mere mention of a small problem with a framed site.
      You think not being able to be indexed correctly by the search engines a
      "small problem"?


      --
      Richard
      Killing all google groups posts
      The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

      Comment

      • dorayme

        #48
        Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

        In article <fce7$48114d5e$ 40cba7d0$17039@ NAXS.COM>,
        "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
        dorayme wrote:
        In article <317fe$48112a0e $40cba7d0$30200 @NAXS.COM>,
        "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
        ... I was not suggesting any JS workarounds for IE6, just let is
        degrade. When old IE6 users scroll the page the navbar scrolls away with
        it, Big whoop! Not catastrophic, most site work that way anyhow.
        >
        I am not the one making a *big* issue of this. I just mentioned that in
        a framed site you do not have to mess about or have anything degrade to
        get a fixed menu.
        Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
        knowledgeable. I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>
        >
        I am not suggesting the use of fixed navigation, that was your
        suggestion for the absolute need of frames.
        Wrong completely and utterly. I have never suggested any absolute need
        for either fixed navigation nor for any technology that delivers it. I
        am just saying it can be a nice feature (for short menus - btw) of
        frames and it falls naturally* out of it without special need to do
        anything. You are getting all 'absolutely' and 'thingy' about it! I can
        see everyone rushing to your side in this argument. But the question is
        about how hard to go into someone who comes here with a simple question
        about frames not about what frames can do that something else can do
        better or worse.
        I was just refuting your
        claim that frames is the only viable way to do it
        I never made such a claim. You are twisting the meaning of "viable" and
        putting words in my voice-throw-speaker. You are preparing the ground,
        cunningly to allow *less than wholly satisfying implementations *.

        and therefore frames
        are needed for new sites. I say not so, can be done with CSS, and you
        only leave old IE6 in the lurch.
        This is absolutely classical. You are happy to leave 32% of people in
        the lurch. If it was someone else who said this, you would be straight
        down their throats. But because this is a frames discussion, you adopt a
        more heartless approach. Shame on you Jonathan! I know Bergamot is a
        hard man with no conscience. But you? I would never have thought I would
        hear such a thing!

        ---------------
        * "falls naturally" means it is built into the technology, it is not
        some special dongle that you have to add. Think the way gravity falls
        out of *general* relativity theory as being a consequence of space and
        time and rather than some special extra entity or force. Therein lies
        its great beauty. You are all blind for one reason or another to the
        great natural elegance of frames, why the hell do you think it has had
        such a mesmerizing effect on folk long after NS itself dropped it for
        its own site (according to rf).

        I am annoyed that I have had to give you this juicy little tidbit for
        free from my Framepeace literature. If you have any conscience, if any
        of you have, you will damn well send me at least $US1.50.

        --
        dorayme

        Comment

        • dorayme

          #49
          Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

          In article <_FdQj.4830$ko5 .3662@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
          rf <rf@x.invalidwr ote:
          dorayme <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in news:doraymeRid This-
          62FF4C.14521225 042008@web.aioe .org:
          >
          In article <xNOdnXqoZPWA0I zVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn Z2d@comcast.com >,
          Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.ne twrote:
          As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
          their choices in so choosing.
          There is an issue in this that has nothing to do with allowing. It is
          about the appropriateness of bringing out the big guns and blazing away
          at the mere mention of a small problem with a framed site.
          >
          You think not being able to be indexed correctly by the search engines a
          "small problem"?

          There are ways to lessen the problem without going to the absolute
          extreme of not using frames.

          For many small sites, yes, I think it a very small problem. You seem to
          think that everyone on this earth who makes a site wants desperately to
          be known to all and fast! This is simply not true. Some sites are not
          easily found no matter how well done they are, lost in the welter of
          noise and guess what, it *does not matter*.

          But let me go further. Please, people with weak stomachs or in a
          particularly sensitive state caused by frame discussions, do not read on.

          There is a whole world of websites that none of you has the least idea
          of. I have another organization called "SiteHide" which details a
          cultish practice. That of publishing but getting as close to zero
          visitors as possible. The aim is to throw Google off. Google is not your
          friend in this cult. It is your enemy. "Google is your enemy" is a
          phrase that we SiteHiders often use in discussing issues.

          The sort of questions that come up on the SiteHide bulletin board often
          run along the lines of "Please help, 5 people saw my site today. Where
          did I go wrong? How can I at least reduce this number?"

          (If any of you are interested, I can send you an application form. There
          are some small fees involved)

          --
          dorayme

          Comment

          • dorayme

            #50
            Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

            In article <kEdQj.4828$ko5 .3592@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
            rf <rf@x.invalidwr ote:
            dorayme <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in news:doraymeRid This-
            6933A0.12085625 042008@web.aioe .org:
            >
            [frames]
            >
            You don't get it do you? An existing framed site has a right to life.
            You should all top denigrating them to the point of framicide.
            >
            You don't get it, do you?
            >
            If a page can not be indexed correctly by the search engines then that page
            is IMHO terribly broken. And google itself ...
            >
            I have never denied the downsides. I just am not willing to be as harsh
            in my emotions towards these poor injured birds as you and Jonathan and
            cold-heated Bergamot.
            >
            Lets de-cloud the issue by considering the OP's question.
            >
            O well if you are going to be like this and get down to the actual
            question...

            I was fighting on a broader front. I am not denying that many folk are
            not better off without a framed site. I gave up a nice framed site and
            am very glad I did. But what is good for individuals is not necessarily
            good for the society. I say a few frames around enriches us all. This is
            what you don't get.
            >
            [1] For any benifit you can possibly come up with *for* using frames it can
            be quite easily demonstrated that said benifit can be easily achieved
            *without* using frames. Including the dreaded use-up-canvas "fixed" menu.

            A couple of points on this Richard:

            First, most nav side panels that scroll still use up the viewport space
            with nothing at all to see.

            Second, anything my car and old cars can do, modern cars can do better
            in an efficiency sense. But the absence of old cars would be a great
            shame.

            There is more than modern efficiency at stake. There is a whole world
            outside of this to which you - poor things - are blind.

            --
            dorayme

            Comment

            • rf

              #51
              Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

              dorayme <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in
              news:doraymeRid This-1288C5.16213625 042008@web.aioe .org:
              There is a whole world of websites that none of you has the least idea
              of. I have another organization called "SiteHide" which details a
              cultish practice. That of publishing but getting as close to zero
              visitors as possible. The aim is to throw Google off. Google is not
              your friend in this cult. It is your enemy. "Google is your enemy" is
              a phrase that we SiteHiders often use in discussing issues.
              It has taken a while and I am remiss in identifing the problem far earlier.

              dorayme, you are a bloody dipstick!

              <plonk>

              --
              Richard
              Killing all google groups posts
              The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

              Comment

              • Bergamot

                #52
                Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus


                rf wrote:
                >
                It has taken a while and I am remiss in identifing the problem far earlier.
                Nice to know that someone else has seen the light. :-)
                dorayme, you are a bloody dipstick!
                >
                <plonk>
                I haven't gone as far as plonking yet, but I do skip over about 90% of
                her posts. The florid writing style she's prone to is exceedingly
                tedious to read, and being a bloody dipstick only makes it more painful. :)

                --
                Berg

                Comment

                • Jonathan N. Little

                  #53
                  Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

                  dorayme wrote:
                  In article <fce7$48114d5e$ 40cba7d0$17039@ NAXS.COM>,
                  "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
                  >
                  >dorayme wrote:
                  >>In article <317fe$48112a0e $40cba7d0$30200 @NAXS.COM>,
                  >> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
                  >
                  >... I was not suggesting any JS workarounds for IE6, just let is
                  >degrade. When old IE6 users scroll the page the navbar scrolls away with
                  >it, Big whoop! Not catastrophic, most site work that way anyhow.
                  >>
                  >
                  I am not the one making a *big* issue of this. I just mentioned that in
                  a framed site you do not have to mess about or have anything degrade to
                  get a fixed menu.
                  Actually you are. When a novice asks about frames I think it is
                  reasonable and rational to discourage the use of obsolete technology in
                  creating new sites where better solutions are now available. It is hard
                  to defend a technology which others have mentioned, Netscape the
                  inventors of the frame recognized it shortcoming and abandoned in 6
                  months (I cannot confirm that time frame, but I do remember their sites
                  site change soon after the frame sites was created). You would advocate
                  the use of LAYERs? DHTML tricks? Slice'nDice-ImageReady-AdobeGo pseudo
                  webpages? Matreshka nested table sites?
                  >
                  >>Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
                  >>knowledgeable . I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>
                  >>>
                  >I am not suggesting the use of fixed navigation, that was your
                  >suggestion for the absolute need of frames.
                  >
                  Wrong completely and utterly. I have never suggested any absolute need
                  for either fixed navigation nor for any technology that delivers it. I
                  am just saying it can be a nice feature (for short menus - btw) of
                  frames and it falls naturally* out of it without special need to do
                  anything. You are getting all 'absolutely' and 'thingy' about it! I can
                  see everyone rushing to your side in this argument. But the question is
                  about how hard to go into someone who comes here with a simple question
                  about frames not about what frames can do that something else can do
                  better or worse.
                  If not for the static panel, considering all the other *real* problems
                  frames do have(do we need to list them here?) which a novice may not be
                  aware of, why should we encourage their continued use? Later we will
                  have to deal with their inevitable questions on frame synchronization ,
                  bookmarking, and "how can I get rid of the frameset border"!
                  >I was just refuting your
                  >claim that frames is the only viable way to do it
                  >
                  I never made such a claim. You are twisting the meaning of "viable" and
                  putting words in my voice-throw-speaker. You are preparing the ground,
                  cunningly to allow *less than wholly satisfying implementations *.
                  It seems that way. Other than the static panel, and server-less
                  includes, both of which can easily be accomplished in other ways without
                  the use of frames then why advocate frames? If you inherit a frame site
                  is one thing, but to create a new one?
                  >
                  >and therefore frames
                  >are needed for new sites. I say not so, can be done with CSS, and you
                  >only leave old IE6 in the lurch.
                  >
                  This is absolutely classical. You are happy to leave 32% of people in
                  the lurch. If it was someone else who said this, you would be straight
                  down their throats. But because this is a frames discussion, you adopt a
                  more heartless approach. Shame on you Jonathan! I know Bergamot is a
                  hard man with no conscience. But you? I would never have thought I would
                  hear such a thing!
                  Who the hell said I said to leave IE6 users in the lurch? Now who is
                  distorting the issue? I was very explicit in saying there is only one
                  small aspect of the frame-less solutions that effects IE6. The CSS
                  method of production a static panel typically use for navbars and
                  banners. Aside of the fact that there is a JS solution that would only
                  exclude a tiny fraction (10% of 32% -- hmm do IE users even know how to
                  disable JS?) But even without JS when the "position: fixed" degrades it
                  is not like that page ceases to be usable for IE6 users! It will become
                  "position: static" and appear like the majority of websites. It would
                  only be a very minor thing to have the elements remain static instead of
                  fixed, some folks including ol' Spartacus would prefer it.
                  >
                  ---------------
                  * "falls naturally" means it is built into the technology, it is not
                  some special dongle that you have to add. Think the way gravity falls
                  out of *general* relativity theory as being a consequence of space and
                  time and rather than some special extra entity or force. Therein lies
                  its great beauty. You are all blind for one reason or another to the
                  great natural elegance of frames, why the hell do you think it has had
                  such a mesmerizing effect on folk long after NS itself dropped it for
                  its own site (according to rf).
                  Not use what is "natural" at all about frames. It "naturally" follows
                  that folks have plenty of trouble with such "natural" elements as
                  evidence of the countless question on frames and iframes in the NG.
                  >
                  I am annoyed that I have had to give you this juicy little tidbit for
                  free from my Framepeace literature. If you have any conscience, if any
                  of you have, you will damn well send me at least $US1.50.
                  >
                  no comment...

                  --
                  Take care,

                  Jonathan
                  -------------------
                  LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

                  Comment

                  • dorayme

                    #54
                    Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

                    In article <c3f54$4811f535 $40cba7ce$740@N AXS.COM>,
                    "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
                    dorayme wrote:
                    In article <fce7$48114d5e$ 40cba7d0$17039@ NAXS.COM>,
                    "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
                    dorayme wrote:
                    >In article <317fe$48112a0e $40cba7d0$30200 @NAXS.COM>,
                    > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
                    ... I was not suggesting any JS workarounds for IE6, just let is
                    degrade. When old IE6 users scroll the page the navbar scrolls away with
                    it, Big whoop! Not catastrophic, most site work that way anyhow.
                    >
                    I am not the one making a *big* issue of this. I just mentioned that in
                    a framed site you do not have to mess about or have anything degrade to
                    get a fixed menu.
                    >
                    Actually you are. When a novice asks about frames I think it is
                    reasonable and rational to discourage the use of obsolete technology in
                    creating new sites
                    I have never suggested you should *encourage* the use of frames for a
                    new site. I have never suggested you should never *discourage* the use
                    of frames for new sites. I have not even suggested you should not
                    mention the downsides of frames when someone has a problem with frames.
                    Before you grab any old statement of mine and say "This suggests exactly
                    the opposite", please seriously consider that you are not getting my
                    drift.

                    If someone already has a framed site and it has one or two problems, it
                    often seems fair to me to suggest a fix within the technology. The mere
                    mention of frames (but perhaps not so much in this thread to be fair to
                    you) should not be such a hair trigger for the reading out the riot act
                    so loudly.
                    >
                    Not use what is "natural" at all about frames. It "naturally" follows
                    that folks have plenty of trouble with such "natural" elements as
                    evidence of the countless question on frames and iframes in the NG.
                    >
                    I don't know Jonathan, I am not impressed by this. There is no end of
                    questions about floats and other modern css and server side
                    techniques...

                    You are missing the point about my use of the word natural and are just
                    poking fun. "Natural" in the context I mean is "simple consequence". It
                    is natural for a left frame not to scroll away. That is what a frame is.
                    There is nothing special that has to be done to stop it. It does it by
                    its own nature.

                    There are some things that frames do in a simple and natural way and you
                    refuse to acknowledge this because, as far as I can see, you know a
                    better way of doing things *on the whole*. A flimsy argument if there
                    ever was one!

                    There is no way I can get you to see this. My attempts and analogies
                    seem to have upset you all.

                    --
                    dorayme

                    Comment

                    • dorayme

                      #55
                      Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

                      In article <67e314F2neb5aU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
                      Bergamot <bergamot@visi. comwrote:
                      rf wrote:

                      It has taken a while and I am remiss in identifing the problem far earlier.
                      >
                      Nice to know that someone else has seen the light. :-)
                      >
                      dorayme, you are a bloody dipstick!

                      <plonk>
                      >
                      I haven't gone as far as plonking yet, but I do skip over about 90% of
                      her posts. The florid writing style she's prone to is exceedingly
                      tedious to read, and being a bloody dipstick only makes it more painful. :)
                      Actually Bergamot, I do now understand why you so badly misinterpret me.
                      You *have* to read every single word I utter because I can - at any time
                      - suddenly and without warning throw in a sensible thought.

                      I rather liked old Richard. I will see if his kf has any beer in the
                      fridge. I bet he comes down for a few schooners when he gets bored with
                      all you sensible people, I reckon a few rounds with a dipstick to see
                      who can drink who under the table might be attractive to anyone with a
                      bit of get up and go.

                      --
                      dorayme

                      Comment

                      • Jonathan N. Little

                        #56
                        Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

                        dorayme wrote:
                        I have never suggested you should *encourage* the use of frames for a
                        new site. I have never suggested you should never *discourage* the use
                        of frames for new sites. I have not even suggested you should not
                        mention the downsides of frames when someone has a problem with frames.
                        Before you grab any old statement of mine and say "This suggests exactly
                        the opposite", please seriously consider that you are not getting my
                        drift.
                        And my point is one should *discourage* as with other obsolete html
                        techniques like layers... Some things were just a bad idea.
                        >
                        If someone already has a framed site and it has one or two problems, it
                        often seems fair to me to suggest a fix within the technology. The mere
                        mention of frames (but perhaps not so much in this thread to be fair to
                        you) should not be such a hair trigger for the reading out the riot act
                        so loudly.
                        From OP I get the indication this is a new developing site. If not new
                        the it never functioned.

                        <snip>
                        There are some things that frames do in a simple and natural way and you
                        refuse to acknowledge this because, as far as I can see, you know a
                        better way of doing things *on the whole*. A flimsy argument if there
                        ever was one!
                        >
                        There is no way I can get you to see this. My attempts and analogies
                        seem to have upset you all.

                        Can't see any virtues, other than the static panel just see to be the
                        method of choice for the unsophisticated to "borrow" other site's
                        content and pass it off as their own.

                        --
                        Take care,

                        Jonathan
                        -------------------
                        LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

                        Comment

                        • dorayme

                          #57
                          Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

                          In article <5c5ba$4813252d $40cba7d0$4652@ NAXS.COM>,
                          "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:
                          dorayme wrote:
                          >
                          I have never suggested you should *encourage* the use of frames for a
                          new site. I have never suggested you should never *discourage* the use
                          of frames for new sites. I have not even suggested you should not
                          mention the downsides of frames when someone has a problem with frames.
                          Before you grab any old statement of mine and say "This suggests exactly
                          the opposite", please seriously consider that you are not getting my
                          drift.
                          >
                          And my point is one should *discourage* as with other obsolete html
                          techniques like layers... Some things were just a bad idea.
                          >
                          And mine was that it is not always appropriate to discourage in such a
                          heavy handed way that established framed sites are left unfixed because
                          the idea of learning new skills are too immediately daunting to their
                          authors.

                          I have different interests to you. You want a perfect world, I find
                          interest in an imperfect one. Please go and see a rather good film,
                          Pleasantville.
                          >
                          There are some things that frames do in a simple and natural way and you
                          refuse to acknowledge this because, as far as I can see, you know a
                          better way of doing things *on the whole*. A flimsy argument if there
                          ever was one!

                          There is no way I can get you to see this. My attempts and analogies
                          seem to have upset you all.
                          >
                          >
                          Can't see any virtues, other than the static panel just see to be the
                          method of choice for the unsophisticated to "borrow" other site's
                          content and pass it off as their own.
                          Nor will you ever. You will downplay every difficulty for someone to
                          move on from frames technology, you will at every turn see and loudly
                          suggest alternatives to everything that can be done in a simple way with
                          frames and in the process you will never admit a single good thing about
                          them. You will forever be ready and amazingly willing to see the worst
                          in a technology you obviously detest and never the least thing good. And
                          you will be loudly applauded and encouraged to do so from a band of like
                          minded and, in my opinion of course, similarly biased people.

                          I bet quids that you will not even see that I am not questioning the
                          least bit, your technical expertise (which I hold in high regard), or
                          that this dispute is not about mere technicalities. It is about people,
                          about what exists, about keeping a few old cars on the road and doing
                          good by them.

                          --
                          dorayme

                          Comment

                          Working...