MSTC website

jake wrote:

In message <398jkqF5uudbtU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

If you need 'frame's functionality, then you need ........... frames ;-)


There is no functionality provided by frames that can *only* be
provided by frames.


OK. I'll bite. How else would you duplicate the functionality of frames
-- without involving the server?

I didn't say without involving the server--and neither did you. And it
doesn't matter, because you can still duplicate the functionality
perfectly well by including the same code in every file, painstaking as
that may be. Or you can use a preprocessor that will add the duplicate
code into every file for you before you put it on the server.

Adrienne wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writing in news:398jkqF5uudbtU2
@individual.net:

jake wrote:
If you need 'frame's functionality, then you need ........... frames

;-)

There is no functionality provided by frames that can *only* be

provided

by frames.

Actually, there is. The user can resize a frame. A scrolling div cannot
be resized. For example, http://www.scriptassist.com/sample.asp uses a
scrolling div, and http://www.scriptassist.com/online/index.asp which
uses frames (use login usenet password usenet).

I'll grant you that one! Although, I think that that is rarely the
motivation for the choice to use frames.

jake wrote:

In message <398jpaF5uudbtU3 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <3964ggF5urk89U2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

Particularly the effort needed to enable users to bookmark specific
pages.

'Favorites' --> 'Add to Favorites' --> (create in) --> OK

Most of us expect a bookmark to go to the page we bookmarked. But
sure, you're way is fine if every time you bookmark a page somewhere
inside a web site, you don't mind if the bookmark actually leads only
to the site's home page.

The same url, but with the appropriate (bookmarked) content displayed --
is it not?

No. A bookmark *is* a URL. A single URL. When you bookmark a site with
frames, the bookmark is the URL of the frameset, regardless of the pages
that are appearing in the content frames at the moment. When you use the
bookmark later, you go to the frameset, which loads the default pages
defined in the FRAME tags.

A user *could* bookmark the content itself (in some browsers, anyway) by
right-clicking on the frame and choosing a Save Bookmark option. But
when you use that bookmark later, *only* the content will appear,
filling the entire browser. No frames. No banner. No navigation.

jake wrote:

In message <398ju3F5uudbtU4 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.


Driving on the left side of the road is not inherently a safety
problem. It is a problem only if everyone else is driving on the right
side of the road.

So: using frames in an agent that supports frames is not inherently an
accessibility problem, but some accessibility solutions don't
*support* frames, so in reality it's still somewhat of an
accessibility problem.


And what 'accesibility solutions' would they be, then?

As frames don't provide an accessibility problem to the visually
disabled and to those people that cannot use a mouse (to name but two
groups) I'd be interested in knowing what disability groups would have
problems.

The visually disabled, if the hardware or software they use doesn't
support frames. As I was saying.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, jake wrote:
[snip]

If you need 'frame's functionality, then you need ........... frames ;-)

Indeed.

I have one page on my website that I replace my home page with from time
to time that uses frames. It was the best way to get my point across:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/protest2.html



--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380 (AT) chebucto (DOT) ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
"It's MyParty and I'll delete it if I want to."
-- Trafton Ziegler in alt.comp.virus, on Sunday, February 10, 2002.

In message <398rr7F5vqkdcU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <398jkqF5uudbtU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

If you need 'frame's functionality, then you need ........... frames ;-)


There is no functionality provided by frames that can *only* be
provided by frames.
OK. I'll bite. How else would you duplicate the functionality of
frames -- without involving the server?

I didn't say without involving the server--and neither did you. And it
doesn't matter, because you can still duplicate the functionality
perfectly well by including the same code in every file, painstaking as
that may be. Or you can use a preprocessor that will add the duplicate
code into every file for you before you put it on the server.

It's still not duplicating the functionality. If it did, I would be able
to fill a section of the screen with content chosen randomly -- and do
it off-line if I chose to.

Besides, why would I want to use a 'pretend-frames' approach when it's
far easier to use the real thing?

regards.

--
Jake

In message <398ss8F5s6o2tU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <398ju3F5uudbtU4 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.


Driving on the left side of the road is not inherently a safety
problem. It is a problem only if everyone else is driving on the
right side of the road.

So: using frames in an agent that supports frames is not inherently
an accessibility problem, but some accessibility solutions don't
*support* frames, so in reality it's still somewhat of an
accessibility problem.
And what 'accesibility solutions' would they be, then?
As frames don't provide an accessibility problem to the visually
disabled and to those people that cannot use a mouse (to name but two
groups) I'd be interested in knowing what disability groups would have
problems.

The visually disabled, if the hardware or software they use doesn't
support frames. As I was saying.

Modern AT UAs that support the visually disabled work just fine with
properly written frames; I'm not sure why you should think otherwise.

Out of interest, which UA are you having problems with?

regards

--
Jake

In message <398smpF5s6o2tU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <398jpaF5uudbtU3 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <3964ggF5urk89U2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

Particularly the effort needed to enable users to bookmark
specific pages.

'Favorites' --> 'Add to Favorites' --> (create in) --> OK

Most of us expect a bookmark to go to the page we bookmarked. But
sure, you're way is fine if every time you bookmark a page somewhere
inside a web site, you don't mind if the bookmark actually leads only
to the site's home page.

The same url, but with the appropriate (bookmarked) content displayed
-- is it not?

No. A bookmark *is* a URL. A single URL. When you bookmark a site with
frames, the bookmark is the URL of the frameset, regardless of the
pages that are appearing in the content frames at the moment. When you
use the bookmark later, you go to the frameset, which loads the default
pages defined in the FRAME tags.

Not so.

A user *could* bookmark the content itself (in some browsers, anyway)
by right-clicking on the frame and choosing a Save Bookmark option. But
when you use that bookmark later, *only* the content will appear,
filling the entire browser. No frames. No banner. No navigation.

Nope.

Let's take a simple example:

I have a 3-frame display:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/EX01X.JPG (39k)

After initial loading, I click on a link that loads the content of Frame
1 into frame 2.

I bookmark the context: 'Favorites' --> Add to Favorites -->( name 'AC'
into directory 'ACSAVE').

Now. I look at a lot of other sites, but want to look at the original
site again.

If I now enter 'Favorites' --> ('AC' in directory 'ACSAVE'), what do I
see?

regards.


--
Jake

jake wrote:

In message <398rr7F5vqkdcU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:


OK. I'll bite. How else would you duplicate the functionality of
frames -- without involving the server?


I didn't say without involving the server--and neither did you. And it
doesn't matter, because you can still duplicate the functionality
perfectly well by including the same code in every file, painstaking
as that may be. Or you can use a preprocessor that will add the
duplicate code into every file for you before you put it on the server.


It's still not duplicating the functionality. If it did, I would be able
to fill a section of the screen with content chosen randomly -- and do
it off-line if I chose to.

Huh?

Besides, why would I want to use a 'pretend-frames' approach when it's
far easier to use the real thing?

Because of all the reasons why frames aren't a good idea.

jake wrote:

In message <398smpF5s6o2tU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398jpaF5uudbtU3 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <3964ggF5urk89U2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

Particularly the effort needed to enable users to bookmark
specific pages.


'Favorites' --> 'Add to Favorites' --> (create in) --> OK


Most of us expect a bookmark to go to the page we bookmarked. But
sure, you're way is fine if every time you bookmark a page somewhere
inside a web site, you don't mind if the bookmark actually leads
only to the site's home page.


The same url, but with the appropriate (bookmarked) content displayed
-- is it not?


No. A bookmark *is* a URL. A single URL. When you bookmark a site with
frames, the bookmark is the URL of the frameset, regardless of the
pages that are appearing in the content frames at the moment. When you
use the bookmark later, you go to the frameset, which loads the
default pages defined in the FRAME tags.


Not so.

To make sure I wasn't being a total doofus, I decided to check. And you
know what--with IE6, you're right. Which I hadn't realized, and that's
at least a decent feature that IE has for working around ill-advised
site-construction practices. But you know what else? Of the browsers I
have, only IE does this. Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera don't.

And even IE doesn't get around the problem of passing the URL on to
someone *else* when you're trying to refer them to information on the site.

A user *could* bookmark the content itself (in some browsers, anyway)
by right-clicking on the frame and choosing a Save Bookmark option.
But when you use that bookmark later, *only* the content will appear,
filling the entire browser. No frames. No banner. No navigation.


Nope.

Yup. I just did it in IE. Try it.

Let's take a simple example:

I have a 3-frame display:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/EX01X.JPG (39k)

It was easy enough to use an existing site that uses frames. For
example, http://www.nagb.org/.

After initial loading, I click on a link that loads the content of Frame
1 into frame 2.

I bookmark the context: 'Favorites' --> Add to Favorites -->( name 'AC'
into directory 'ACSAVE').

Now. I look at a lot of other sites, but want to look at the original
site again.

If I now enter 'Favorites' --> ('AC' in directory 'ACSAVE'), what do I see?

This is all in IE, right? Try another browser so you can see what many
other users are getting.