Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in
news:doraymeRidThis-1288C5.16213625042008 (AT) web (DOT) 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

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

dorayme wrote:

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.

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
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <c3f54$4811f535$40cba7ce$740 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
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.

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

In article <67e314F2neb5aU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Bergamot <bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

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

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
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <5c5ba$4813252d$40cba7d0$4652 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

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