Site Ratings & Reviews - Frames! Glorious frames!

Author

Frames! Glorious frames!

Toby Inkster

2004-07-26, 11:16 pm

I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with them?"

Let us look at some of the major usability problems with frames:

1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;
2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
frameset you have no navigation;
3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support; and
4. Frames often cause a proliferation of scroll bars.

I believe the frameset here avoids the first three problems and mostly
avoids the fourth:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/frameset.php

Source code to the PHP files can be found here for closer inspection:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/

Any ideas for improvements?

Hugs and kisses,

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

SpaceGirl

2004-07-26, 11:16 pm

Toby Inkster wrote:

> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
> use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with them?"
>
> Let us look at some of the major usability problems with frames:
>
> 1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;
> 2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
> frameset you have no navigation;
> 3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support; and
> 4. Frames often cause a proliferation of scroll bars.
>
> I believe the frameset here avoids the first three problems and mostly
> avoids the fourth:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/frameset.php
>
> Source code to the PHP files can be found here for closer inspection:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/
>
> Any ideas for improvements?
>
> Hugs and kisses,
>

I've used parameter passing to a frameset before... it actually works
really well. subhuman.net uses it when you pass an article ID to the
index page (it loads the correct article into an iframe).

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

Els

2004-07-26, 11:16 pm

Toby Inkster wrote:

> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it
> possible to use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness
> usually associated with them?"
>
> Let us look at some of the major usability problems with
> frames:
>
> 1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;
> 2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other
> than the frameset you have no navigation;
> 3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames
> support; and 4. Frames often cause a proliferation of
> scroll bars.
>
> I believe the frameset here avoids the first three problems
> and mostly avoids the fourth:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/frameset.php
>
> Source code to the PHP files can be found here for closer
> inspection: http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/
>
> Any ideas for improvements?

Get the background color consistent:
If I get the right frame seperately, it has a white background
(was black after clicking your link). Then I add the left
frame, it's all white. But if I bookmark the complete
frameset, the left frame comes back black, while the right one
remains black. Or was that all on purpose? :-)

Hmm... clicking again on your link now, also gives black in
the left pane, white in the right one... Maybe I'm mistaken
and the right pane never was black? :S

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Ashanti - Rock Wit U (Aww Baby)

Ben Measures

2004-07-26, 11:16 pm

Toby Inkster

2004-07-26, 11:16 pm

Ben Measures wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
>
> I don't see the advantage to using frames here, especially since you're
> using PHP. Why not just do it with PHP?

The advantage of using frames is thus: if I don't use frames, then I
haven't answered my original question; if I do use frames then I might be
able to answer my original question. And that is the advantage of using
frames.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Disco Octopus

2004-07-26, 11:16 pm

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote:
>
> The advantage of using frames is thus: if I don't use frames, then I
> haven't answered my original question; if I do use frames then I
> might be
> able to answer my original question. And that is the advantage of
> using frames.

I understand your comments here, and I also understand the point of Ben
Measures comment / question. However, Ben Measures may not understand that
you are _not_ pointing out any *advantage* of using frames... you are merely
pointing out that is is possible to build a site structure that may use
frames without the mastiness.

I dont think that *anwering your question* is an advantage of using frames.
However, your use of frames does definately answer your question, and
therefore, this fact is the only advantage that I can see for using frames.

Indeed... it does avoid the nastiness that you have pointed out.

I just felt that I needed ot clear that up for myself. -- helps me think
about things like why are there never teaspoons in the drawer at work.

Thanks

2004-07-26, 11:16 pm

Toby Inkster wrote:

> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
> use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with
> them?"
>
> Let us look at some of the major usability problems with frames:
>
> 1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;
> 2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
> frameset you have no navigation;
> 3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support; and
> 4. Frames often cause a proliferation of scroll bars.
>
> I believe the frameset here avoids the first three problems and mostly
> avoids the fourth:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/frameset.php
>
> Source code to the PHP files can be found here for closer inspection:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/
>
> Any ideas for improvements?
>
> Hugs and kisses,
>
Squeezed and smacked, thank you.

Right Frame:
Every page of the right hand frame needs redundant navigation so that
robots don't get confused. This could be small and at the bottom,
but it needs to be there.

Main Document Source:
While repeating the material in the right frame in the main document
source might be useful, it will be less useful if there are more than one
page of the right frame. A much more useful redundance here would
be to repeat the left-frame-navigation in a <noframe>.

But:
All that being said, I just two weeks ago spend three days killing the
last visiges of the nasty things from some subsites at my personal site, and
feel it was definitely the right decision.
--
m http://www.mbstevens.com/

Ben Measures

2004-07-27, 4:16 am

Disco Octopus wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
> I dont think that *anwering your question* is an advantage of using frames.
> However, your use of frames does definately answer your question, and
> therefore, this fact is the only advantage that I can see for using frames.
>
> Indeed... it does avoid the nastiness that you have pointed out.

It seems I forgot to mention that in order to satisfy point 3 [1] the
size of the downloaded HTML has doubled. IMO this at least needs a
compensating advantage.

[1] Toby Inkster wrote:
> 3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support;

--
Ben M.

Bill Logan

2004-07-27, 4:16 am

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.26.22.31.22.238208@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
> use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with them?"
>
> Let us look at some of the major usability problems with frames:
>
> 1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;
> 2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
> frameset you have no navigation;
> 3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support; and
> 4. Frames often cause a proliferation of scroll bars.
>
> I believe the frameset here avoids the first three problems and mostly
> avoids the fourth:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/frameset.php
>

Of course, clicking on the navigation bar missing link repeats the frameset
within the main frame, ad-nauseum?

2. if I enter the page at mainframe.php?page=aenean_feugiat I get no navigation.
How does that avoid 2 above? (interested to know :-)

Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen

2004-07-27, 4:16 am

Toby Inkster

2004-07-27, 4:16 am

Bill Logan wrote:

> 2. if I enter the page at mainframe.php?page=aenean_feugiat I get no navigation.
> How does that avoid 2 above? (interested to know :-)

You should get some navigation (in the form of a single link) near the
bottom.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Spartanicus

2004-07-27, 4:16 am

Toby Inkster <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

>I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
>use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with them?"

The problems with frames and the misconception that they are unavoidable
have been discussed to death, why redo that discussion again?

>Let us look at some of the major usability problems with frames:
>
>1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;

Frameset for every combination of panes.

>2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
>frameset you have no navigation;

Prevent SE access to framed pages, only allow them to access the
frameset pages.

>3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support; and

Replicate the content in the noframes section, provide basic star type
alternative navigation.

>4. Frames often cause a proliferation of scroll bars.

Scroll bars in a properly designed page are pretty intuitive,
"proliferation" only happens when the author makes errors. The scroll
bar mechanism provided by frames is actually a strength compared to the
CSS frame imitations.

--
Spartanicus

Mark Parnell

2004-07-27, 4:16 am

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:31:24 +0100, Toby Inkster
<usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> declared in
alt.www.webmaster,alt.html.critique:

> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
> use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with them?"

I started writing an article on much the same topic a while back. Have
been meaning to drag it out and finish it. :-S

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

|-|erc

2004-07-27, 7:15 am

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
> use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with them?"
>
> Let us look at some of the major usability problems with frames:
>
> 1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;
> 2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
> frameset you have no navigation;
> 3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support; and
> 4. Frames often cause a proliferation of scroll bars.
>
> I believe the frameset here avoids the first three problems and mostly
> avoids the fourth:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/frameset.php
>
> Source code to the PHP files can be found here for closer inspection:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/
>
> Any ideas for improvements?

The SEs don't handle them too well, if you could put <meta this is framed by www.mysite.com>
so it didn't get indexed they would be OK.

Database forms always have a top form with the main table info and menu, and some
subforms with scroll bars for mulitple data. Wouldn't VBulletin be nicer if the forum
heirarchy at the top of screen stayed there, all this scrolling up and down everywhere
to navigate is a pain. If we saw the no frame designs when designing database forms
we'd laugh, "where'd the fking menu go!". -5 points for no onscreen menu. Your
newsreader has half a dozen paynes doesn't it, scroll this section and that section, why
not web forums and half of the other interfaces on the web. Compare reading newsgroups
on google to a newsreader using paynes, basically frames. The problem is a deeper
level, like JAVA, who really likes JAVA when it was hailed as easy to program and
there's 10 million sites that say "class not found". Object Oriented doesn't make coding
easier, it makes 100,000 lines of code systems easier to manage. Its bloody useless for
teaching hobbyists how to get something online. If there's a genuine need for a scrolling
section then use them.

Herc

E. Le Phant

2004-07-27, 7:15 am

Sam Hughes

2004-07-27, 7:17 pm

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:31:24 +0100, Toby Inkster
<usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
> use frames in a way that avoids the nastiness usually associated with
> them?"
>
> Let us look at some of the major usability problems with frames:
>
> 1. You can't bookmark a particular combination of frames;
> 2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
> frameset you have no navigation;
> 3. Frames degrade badly in browser that have no frames support; and
> 4. Frames often cause a proliferation of scroll bars.
>
> I believe the frameset here avoids the first three problems and mostly
> avoids the fourth:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/frameset.php
>
> Source code to the PHP files can be found here for closer inspection:
> http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/glorious/
>
> Any ideas for improvements?

I notice that the font-size in the left frame is rediculously small, just
in an attempt to avoid the possibility of a horizontal scrollbar. So
frames still lose :P (unless you fix it).

--
Accessible web designs go easily unnoticed;
the others are remembered and avoided forever.

Steve

2004-07-27, 7:17 pm

In news:pan.2004.07.26.22.31.22.238208@tobyinkster.co.uk,
Toby Inkster <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> said:
[snip]
> 2. If you enter the collection of pages from any page other than the
> frameset you have no navigation;

> Any ideas for improvements?

Why don't you detect the parent frame in JavaScript, and then reload the
frameset if it is absent? Or is JavaScript frowned upon?

--
Steve

Toby Inkster

2004-07-27, 7:17 pm

Steve wrote:

> Why don't you detect the parent frame in JavaScript, and then reload the
> frameset if it is absent? Or is JavaScript frowned upon?

Javascript isn't frowned upon in general, but breaking the "back" button
is.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Toby Inkster

2004-07-27, 7:17 pm

Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
>
> 5. A browser that doesn't have frames enabled (including Google),
> usually displays a message like "Your browser doesn't support frames.
> Click here to download a new version of Internet Explorer". Nasty.

I count that as part of #3.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Toby Inkster

2004-07-27, 7:17 pm

Sam Hughes wrote:

> I notice that the font-size in the left frame is rediculously small, just
> in an attempt to avoid the possibility of a horizontal scrollbar.

Nah -- it's small to de-emphasise it. If left at 100% it still doesn't
cause a horizontal scroll bar (not in my browser anyway -- and my browser
is configured with larger-than-usual fonts to begin with!)

And 80% is not "ridiculously small". CSS has seven named font sizes:

173% = xx-large
144% = x-large
120% = large
100% = medium
83% = small
69% = x-small
58% = xx-small

(The %ages that correspond to the named sizes are as per the 1.2:1 ratio
suggested in the CSS 2 spec.)

Logically one should configure their browser so that all the seven named
sizes are legible (though perhaps at xx-small and x-small rather
uncomfortable to read) -- thus 80% should be legible.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Bill Logan

2004-07-27, 7:17 pm

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.27.17.30.41.426736@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> Steve wrote:
>
>
> Javascript isn't frowned upon in general, but breaking the "back" button
> is.
>
Have you considered doing the same thing sugested by Steve using header commands
rather than jjs?

Toby Inkster

2004-07-27, 7:17 pm

Bill Logan wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
> Have you considered doing the same thing sugested by Steve using header
> commands rather than jjs?

The server doesn't know whether you're viewing the page in a frame or not
-- only client-side scripts can.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Gerry W ( Use my name at dergal dot c o m for emai

2004-07-28, 4:15 am

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Sam Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Nah -- it's small to de-emphasise it. If left at 100% it still doesn't
> cause a horizontal scroll bar (not in my browser anyway -- and my browser
> is configured with larger-than-usual fonts to begin with!)
>
> And 80% is not "ridiculously small". CSS has seven named font sizes:
>
> 173% = xx-large
> 144% = x-large
> 120% = large
> 100% = medium
> 83% = small
> 69% = x-small
> 58% = xx-small
>
> (The %ages that correspond to the named sizes are as per the 1.2:1 ratio
> suggested in the CSS 2 spec.)
>
> Logically one should configure their browser so that all the seven named
> sizes are legible (though perhaps at xx-small and x-small rather
> uncomfortable to read) -- thus 80% should be legible.
>
try it on a mac, apparently fonts on a mac are much smaller!

G

Bill Logan

2004-07-28, 4:15 am

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.27.21.55.09.969413@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> Bill Logan wrote:
>
> The server doesn't know whether you're viewing the page in a frame or not
> -- only client-side scripts can.
>
No, but if the headers force the frameset to load/reload the server can safely
assume everyone is viewing in a frame, or the noframes is kicking in. Either way
the result is everyone gets what they would have got if they had done it from the
index file, even when they try to access a content page directly.

Toby Inkster

2004-07-28, 4:15 am

Gerry W ( Use my name at dergal dot c o m for email wrote:

> try it on a mac, apparently fonts on a mac are much smaller!

Fonts on a mac are whatever size the user chooses.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Bill Logan

2004-07-28, 12:15 pm

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.28.06.20.17.781758@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> Gerry W ( Use my name at dergal dot c o m for email wrote:
>
>
> Fonts on a mac are whatever size the user chooses.
>
I think the reference was to how mac fonts are 'tighter than PC fonts. A mac font
size of 15px will appear smaller than a PC font size 15px due to the smaller and
tighter pixel size (more px to the inch)

At least that is how I remember it from Varsity days:-(

Dylan Parry

2004-07-28, 12:15 pm

Bill Logan wrote:

> I think the reference was to how mac fonts are 'tighter than PC fonts. A
> mac font size of 15px will appear smaller than a PC font size 15px due
> to the smaller and tighter pixel size (more px to the inch)

I'm probably totally wrong, but I see to recall that PC monitors are 72dpi
and Macs are 96dpi?

--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk - FREE Web tutorials and references

Listening to: Emerson, Lake and Palmer - Black Moon

Spartanicus

2004-07-28, 12:15 pm

Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:

>
>I'm probably totally wrong, but I see to recall that PC monitors are 72dpi
>and Macs are 96dpi?

Monitors come in all sorts of resolutions, 72dpi would be at the low end
of the scale, the high end of the scale for general purpose screens is
about 147dpi. Special purpose screens go up to 200dpi.

--
Spartanicus

Ben Measures

2004-07-28, 12:15 pm

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Gerry W wrote:
>
>
> Fonts on a mac are whatever size the user chooses.

http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonke....html?tw=design

12pt is smaller on a Mac than on a Windows computer. Generally speaking,
MacOS assumes 96dpi for the monitor whilst Windows assumes 72dpi.

I find it so frustrating that the majority of people forget that pt is a
physical size, and that OSes rarely get the scaling correct.

--
Ben M.

Toby Inkster

2004-07-28, 7:16 pm

Ben Measures wrote:

> 12pt is smaller on a Mac than on a Windows computer. Generally speaking,
> MacOS assumes 96dpi for the monitor whilst Windows assumes 72dpi.

Nuh-uh. Macs assume 72dpi and Windows assumes 96dpi. Also, for reference
X11 assumes either 75dpi or 100dpi. My computer is configured at 102dpi
because that is what it is.

Irrelevent anyway as none of the fonts in the example are specified in
points, centimetres, inches, furlongs, nautical miles or any other
physical measurements.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./train/drops_of_jupiter/01_shes_on_fire.ogg

Ben Measures

2004-07-28, 7:16 pm

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote:
>
> Nuh-uh. Macs assume 72dpi and Windows assumes 96dpi. Also, for reference
> X11 assumes either 75dpi or 100dpi.

Ooops! I accidently mixed the two, however the point still remains -
12pt varies in size depending on what system you use. IOW (directly
contradicting your rash statement), fonts are rarely the size the user
chooses.

> Irrelevent anyway as none of the fonts in the example are specified in
> points, centimetres, inches, furlongs, nautical miles or any other
> physical measurements.

The browser still specifies a pt size, regardless of whether you do or
not. You forget that a relative size must be relative to something.
Ultimately, this is the default font size, which is an absolute size,
measured in points.

--
Ben M.

John W.

2004-07-28, 7:16 pm

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:20:53 GMT, Ben Measures
<saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote:

>Toby Inkster wrote:
[...]
[color=darkred]
>
>The browser still specifies a pt size,

Yours maybe, my Mozilla standard specifies 16 px :)

>regardless of whether you do or
>not. You forget that a relative size must be relative to something.
>Ultimately, this is the default font size, which is an absolute size,
>measured in points.

John OO
--
<http://webcel.nl/> webshopsoftware + more

Toby Inkster

2004-07-28, 7:16 pm

John W wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote:
>
> Yours maybe, my Mozilla standard specifies 16 px :)

Opera's fonts are specified in pixels too (17 of them in my installation).

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./ed_harcourt/here_be_monsters/09_birds_fly_backwards.ogg

Bill Logan

2004-07-28, 7:16 pm

"Dylan Parry" <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.28.11.01.01.10443@dylanparry.com...
> Bill Logan wrote:
>
>
> I'm probably totally wrong, but I see to recall that PC monitors are 72dpi
> and Macs are 96dpi?

Something in that order I think. Which accounts for the smaller 'looking' fonts

I do recall, (early days at Varsity) my first exposure to macs. We did most of
our programming on CL monitors on the mainframe. As a diversion we spent a bit of
time in the (new) mac lab. The sharpness and preciseness of the graphics blew me
away - had to have one, couldnt afford, (as a student:-) so ended up settling for
an Atari - those were the days :-(

Experienced but Undocumented

2004-08-07, 4:15 am

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote
> I don't see the advantage to using frames here, especially since you're
> using PHP. Why not just do it with PHP?

With the frames, the navigation always stays on the screen. No need to
scroll back up to view the navigation.

2004-08-07, 4:15 am

Experienced but Undocumented wrote

> With the frames, the navigation always stays on the screen.

Thus using up valuable real estate which could be devoted to displaying more
content.

> No need to
> scroll back up to view the navigation.

Your browser doesn't have a Home key?

Speaking of navigaion: You have just found something interesting inside a
site that you wish to tell somebody about.

No frames: Go to example.com/interestingstuff.html. Good stuff eh?

Frames: Go to example.com. There yet? OK, find the interesting stuff link.
No, not that one, the one down the bottom. Got it? Oh, you only see booring
stuff. Oh well, forget it then, we'll move on to the next site.

--
Cheers
Richard.

The Truth

2004-08-07, 12:15 pm

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.26.22.31.22.238208@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
<snip>
> Any ideas for improvements?
>
> Hugs and kisses,
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
I use a similar system for my members area - but i load a new framest
completely. this is similar to your method although your has the advantage
of each page being bookmarkable with the frame. is it such a problem though
if the page is bookmarked and shows up offline/online as just the page
without the left bar.... the only problem is the blanks between loads which
are prominent on my connection.

i like this thread as it is good to talk about the dreaded frames. i use
them intently on my site and i have 3 seperate areas with their own
frameset - it works well. i like the way you have done this.. food for
thought..

The Truth

2004-08-07, 12:15 pm

PHP isnt mythang.. i presume ou can still target a _self document wihtin the
main frame into the main frame? i notice you have targetted _top to force a
reload

silly question maybe but i find frames interesting and have done loads with
them with html and javascript.. (i need to get out more..)

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.26.23.03.19.135646@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> Ben Measures wrote:
them?"[color=darkred]
>
> The advantage of using frames is thus: if I don't use frames, then I
> haven't answered my original question; if I do use frames then I might be
> able to answer my original question. And that is the advantage of using
> frames.
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
>

The Truth

2004-08-07, 12:15 pm

oh no... we are talking about text size again.. women are right - we men are
obsessed with size...!!
:)

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98SNc.10228$Mb5.103341199@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Toby Inkster wrote:
speaking,[color=darkred]
>
> Ooops! I accidently mixed the two, however the point still remains -
> 12pt varies in size depending on what system you use. IOW (directly
> contradicting your rash statement), fonts are rarely the size the user
> chooses.
>
>
> The browser still specifies a pt size, regardless of whether you do or
> not. You forget that a relative size must be relative to something.
> Ultimately, this is the default font size, which is an absolute size,
> measured in points.
>
> --
> Ben M.

The Truth

2004-08-07, 12:15 pm

I agree - i am a frame fan - for some sites it is a godsend - especially
with updateable content - its sooo easy just changing the left nav
frame....! heaven!

"Experienced but Undocumented" <e01@removethis.toao.net> wrote in message
news:dj_Qc.63744$T_6.16801@edtnps89...
> "Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote
>
> With the frames, the navigation always stays on the screen. No need to
> scroll back up to view the navigation.
>
>

Ben Measures

2004-08-07, 12:15 pm

The Truth wrote:
>
> i am a frame fan - for some sites it is a godsend - especially
> with updateable content - its sooo easy just changing the left nav
> frame....! heaven!

PHP can do this anyways without frames! If you just want to separate
updateable content why add frames into the equation?

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures

2004-08-07, 12:15 pm

The Truth wrote:
> oh no... we are talking about text size again..

The internet is a vast information resource. As far as I'm concerned,
most useful information is in the form of text. I'd like to be able
gather this information with maximum efficiency and minimum cost in my
time and effort - this is very important as I can never reclaim that time.

If you make the body of text on your site different to my predetermined
preference (which I feel is my optimal reading size) you needlessly
waste my time - it's as simple as that. I think annoyance at people who
waste others' time on a whim is understandable (and justified).

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures

2004-08-07, 12:15 pm

Ben Measures wrote:
> The Truth wrote:
>
>
> The internet is a vast information resource. As far as I'm concerned,
> most useful information is in the form of text. I'd like to be able
> gather this information with maximum efficiency and minimum cost in my
> time and effort - this is very important as I can never reclaim that time.
>
> If you make the body of text on your site different to my predetermined
> preference (which I feel is my optimal reading size) you needlessly
> waste my time - it's as simple as that. I think annoyance at people who
> waste others' time on a whim is understandable (and justified).

Make that, "If you make the main body of text..."

--
Ben M.

Bill Logan

2004-08-07, 7:16 pm

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2T5Rc.931$9J7.9004124@news-text.cableinet.net...
> The Truth wrote:
>
> The internet is a vast information resource.

It used to be.
It has now grown, (developed), into more than just information. Think
communication and you will find this includes things like entertaininment
and participation. If you wish to visit text only informational sites where
the text size depends on your set up - fine. For other people it is not an
issue as text plays only a minimal part in their web experience and
graphics and sound are of far more import to them. To each his own.

Charles Sweeney

2004-08-07, 7:16 pm

The Truth wrote:

> oh no... we are talking about text size again.. women are right - we
> men are obsessed with size...!!

Speak for yourself!

Producing the goods is all that matters.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

Charles Sweeney

2004-08-07, 7:16 pm

The Truth wrote:

> PHP isnt mythang.. i presume ou can still target

Are you Chinese?

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

C.W.

2004-08-07, 7:16 pm

On 7 Aug 2004 20:57:49 GMT, Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
wrote:

>Producing the goods is all that matters.

*nods head in agreement*

Carol

Toby Inkster

2004-08-08, 7:14 am

The Truth wrote:

> PHP isnt mythang.. i presume ou can still target a _self document wihtin the
> main frame into the main frame? i notice you have targetted _top to force a
> reload

Everything I did in that example can be done without server-side
scripting. Server-side scripting just makes it a bit easier to maintain
(reduces a lot of duplication).

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Ben Measures

2004-08-08, 7:14 am

Bill Logan wrote:
> "Ben Measures" wrote:
>
> It used to be.
> It has now grown, (developed), into more than just information. Think
> communication

Communication is just the exchange of information (ideas, thoughts,
opinions, etc).

> If you wish to visit text only informational sites where
> the text size depends on your set up - fine.

It doesn't just apply to "text-only" sites - it applies to all sites
where if the text is removed, information is lost. This is true of most
websites, including the OP's.

> For other people it is not an
> issue as text plays only a minimal part in their web experience and
> graphics and sound are of far more import to them. To each his own.

Of course, I couldn't care less what the font size was if the text was
non-existant or redundant. Having said that, I haven't seen many
examples of non-flash websites that don't involve words as a means of
communication.

--
Ben M.

2004-08-10, 11:19 pm

The Truth

2004-08-10, 11:19 pm

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.26.22.31.22.238208@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
<snip>
> Any ideas for improvements?
>
> Hugs and kisses,
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
I use a similar system for my members area - but i load a new framest
completely. this is similar to your method although your has the advantage
of each page being bookmarkable with the frame. is it such a problem though
if the page is bookmarked and shows up offline/online as just the page
without the left bar.... the only problem is the blanks between loads which
are prominent on my connection.

i like this thread as it is good to talk about the dreaded frames. i use
them intently on my site and i have 3 seperate areas with their own
frameset - it works well. i like the way you have done this.. food for
thought..

The Truth

2004-08-10, 11:19 pm

The Truth

2004-08-10, 11:19 pm

Ben Measures

2004-08-10, 11:19 pm

Ben Measures

2004-08-10, 11:19 pm

The Truth

2004-08-11, 7:19 pm

"Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message news:4115293f$1@clear.net.nz...
> It used to be.
> It has now grown, (developed), into more than just information. Think
> communication and you will find this includes things like entertaininment
> and participation. If you wish to visit text only informational sites
where
> the text size depends on your set up - fine. For other people it is not an
> issue as text plays only a minimal part in their web experience and
> graphics and sound are of far more import to them. To each his own.

Oh no Bill... run for cover.. run real fast.. too late - they're here....
aaaaggghh!

Bill Logan

2004-08-11, 7:19 pm

Experienced but Undocumented

2004-08-13, 11:17 pm

The Truth

2004-08-14, 4:17 am

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200407@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.26.22.31.22.238208@tobyinkster.co.uk...
> I have set myself the task of answering the question "is it possible to
<snip>
> Any ideas for improvements?
>
> Hugs and kisses,
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
I use a similar system for my members area - but i load a new framest
completely. this is similar to your method although your has the advantage
of each page being bookmarkable with the frame. is it such a problem though
if the page is bookmarked and shows up offline/online as just the page
without the left bar.... the only problem is the blanks between loads which
are prominent on my connection.

i like this thread as it is good to talk about the dreaded frames. i use
them intently on my site and i have 3 seperate areas with their own
frameset - it works well. i like the way you have done this.. food for
thought..

The Truth

2004-08-14, 4:17 am

Ben Measures

2004-08-14, 4:17 am

Ben Measures

2004-08-14, 4:17 am

C.W.

2004-08-14, 12:16 pm

On 7 Aug 2004 20:57:49 GMT, Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
wrote:

>Producing the goods is all that matters.

*nods head in agreement*

Carol

The Truth

2004-08-16, 7:16 am