Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

In article <6TaQj.4754$ko5.2204 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
AB4302.11311525042008 (AT) web (DOT) aioe.org:

In article <Bv9Qj.4722$ko5.1846 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:

In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
actually works.

In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
chimera.

Bookmarking does not work *perfectly* well.

You jump straight into a misunderstanding like a moth. You are all
brainwashed earthlings (have you and Jonathan and Bergamot got your arms
stretched out in front of you right now and walking in a straight line?)
<g>

I said many things work perfectly well. So you take this as an
opportunity to say what does *not* work well! Good one, mate!

You do this, as do others, because the issue of being less hysterical
about frames is simply not on your radar. How, you think, can a sensible
person nowadays not wholly detest and despise and want their total
annihilation? If you send me $A10 I will send you out some literature
from my organization Framepeace which is dedicated to protecting the few
endangered framed sites around.

--
dorayme

In article <6TaQj.4754$ko5.2204 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ornit...ibit/title.htm

Where is their navigation?

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ornithology/default.htm

Richard, you cannot make some important general argument out of a site
that has not done its very best by frames. The Engish translation of the
Aritotelian quasi logical fault of this is translated roughly as
follows:

Do not base much on straw men.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <6TaQj.4754$ko5.2204 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
AB4302.11311525042008 (AT) web (DOT) aioe.org:

In article <Bv9Qj.4722$ko5.1846 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:

In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
actually works.
In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
chimera.
Bookmarking does not work *perfectly* well.

You jump straight into a misunderstanding like a moth. You are all
brainwashed earthlings (have you and Jonathan and Bergamot got your arms
stretched out in front of you right now and walking in a straight line?)
g

I said many things work perfectly well. So you take this as an
opportunity to say what does *not* work well! Good one, mate!

You do this, as do others, because the issue of being less hysterical
about frames is simply not on your radar. How, you think, can a sensible
person nowadays not wholly detest and despise and want their total
annihilation? If you send me $A10 I will send you out some literature
from my organization Framepeace which is dedicated to protecting the few
endangered framed sites around.

I think that anyone should be allowed unfettered ability to design a Web
site as they wish. (If it works, it works. If it doesn't, well, it's
their site.)

As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
their choices in so choosing.

As should you be allowed to run an organization to support what many of
us view as a flawed design philosophy.

Eventually, the failings of the design philosophy will either become
apparent to those using it or it won't matter.

Incessantly arguing about it will also, hopefully, eventually, become
nonsensical. But, probably not.

Frames are not evil. No souls are sent to hell because of their use.
But they are silly (the frames, not the souls). And fraught with
problems. So, a sensible person should, at least, say: "Well, ya
really don't wanna do that ..." Reasonably, one would hope, and in a
way that would convince rather than berate. Cajole instead of denigrate.

Ok. Why can't we all just get along? Let's now all sing Kumbaya!

Or, let's all just allow ourselves to be as odd as we like. To that end
I offer up:

http://edmullen.net/temp/06-2003Satu...nMyFashion.mp3

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.

dorayme wrote:

In article <317fe$48112a0e$40cba7d0$30200 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball.
No, but it does degrade gracefully.

It plays ball with
frames.
For the one and only "virtue" a statically positioned portion of the
page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws.

Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.
What jerking?

At some stage in the history of the world Spartanicus said:

"Apart from the obvious inefficient use of screen space, fixed elements
or backgrounds can make scrolling slow and jerky, especially when using
the keyboard. I've got my keyboard repeat delay set to the minimum and
the repeat rate set to the maximum, the movement occurs in smaller steps
and in a higher frequency compared to scrolling with the mouse wheel or
dragging a scrollbar, this emphasizes the problem."

Firstly, did you try my example? What jerking keyboard or otherwise.

Secondly, I was not suggesting and 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.

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. I was just refuting your
claim that frames is the only viable way to do it 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. Not really though because the site will
still be accessible, not so with frames and text-only apps like Lynx.

My site's "Bouncing Betty" is JavaScript not CSS. I am not advocating
that either. My new version site I am working on it is history. I want
to reclaim the wasted 170px on the left.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <xNOdnXqoZPWA0IzVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>,
Ed Mullen <ed (AT) edmullen (DOT) net> wrote:

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.

--
dorayme

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
6933A0.12085625042008 (AT) web (DOT) 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

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
62FF4C.14521225042008 (AT) web (DOT) aioe.org:

In article <xNOdnXqoZPWA0IzVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>,
Ed Mullen <ed (AT) edmullen (DOT) net> wrote:

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

In article <fce7$48114d5e$40cba7d0$17039 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <317fe$48112a0e$40cba7d0$30200 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

... 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

In article <_FdQj.4830$ko5.3662 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
62FF4C.14521225042008 (AT) web (DOT) aioe.org:

In article <xNOdnXqoZPWA0IzVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>,
Ed Mullen <ed (AT) edmullen (DOT) net> wrote:

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

In article <kEdQj.4828$ko5.3592 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
6933A0.12085625042008 (AT) web (DOT) 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