MSTC website

In message <39e62aF605judU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <39b6n2F602mmtU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

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
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.

Greatly exaggerated ;-)

Well, let's see.

Yes. Let's see.

Largely nonexistent bookmarking support,

Except for the 90% of the world using Internet Explorer and have no
'problems' in bookmarking; the other browser manufacturers didn't feel
it was a big enough deal to consider implementing.

inability simultaneously to link to a particular page AND to have the
navigation available when you get there,

Not so. I can link to a particular page and have the navigation on that
page or see a link back to the frameset page, depending upon what the
author has decided to do.

But, of course, that's not how people use a frames-based site anyway, is
it?

search engine problems (equivalent to the problem mentioned problem),

Not for any well-written frame-based site with navigation link(s) in the
<noframes></noframes> area.

non-universal support.
No idea what you mean by this, as I've been using frames since Netscape

2. Can't think of a browser issued since those days that can't handle
frames.

About the search engine thing: Google the words

nagb naep frameworks achievement

and click the link for a document titled Publications with the host
www.nagb.org, and tell me what you see. Where's the navigation? Why,
it's here:

http://www.nagb.org/

but Google doesn't have any way to give you a link that provides you
both the Publications page *and* the navigation frame.

Your example has no entries in the <noframes></noframes> area or a link
back to the frameset page or index on the content pages.

Pick an example of a properly-written example that has adequate
navigation links, both in the <noframes> area, and on the individual
pages.

So there are reasons why it's a disservice to users,

..... except that you haven't shown any ;-)

and reasons why it's a disservice to yourself.

None at all.

If you don't care, so be it.

Just not an issue .... unless you're able to *demonstrate* otherwise.

Regards.

--
Jake

In message <39e6aqF5vbq5aU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

Yes. That's so.
I guess that if bookmarking a complete frameset was a big deal, then
Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, etc. would have provided that facility;
obviously it's not ;-)

That's a silly argument: if it's what's being done, then it must be right.

You can't have it both ways. Either they should have provided it and

it's a big mistake that they didn't -- or they didn't consider it such a
big deal that they wanted to spend time and money doing it.

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

Sure. But do you really need to?

Oh, good grief. Right, it's *so* rare for people to send links to pages
on other web sites to others, or to post them on their own web sites.

For a frames-based site I can only refer you back to the example of
Adriennes' site that you've just snipped.

I can tell you've spent lots and lots of time on the Web.

Long enough to know that you can bookmark frames-based sites using
Internet Explorer ... ;-)

trolllonk

Ah, yes, <plonk>: the unofficial Usenet confirmation that you've lost
the argument. Pity -- it was just getting interesting.

regards.

--
Jake

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:29:09 +0000, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.

Like anything else, it depends what you mean be accessibility.

but if by accessibility you mean making your website available to e.g.
JAWS users, then frames can actually improve the way they access the
web. For example, JAWS will stop at a frames site and tell the user
there are two frames, one is menu and the other is content. Which do
you want to hear? An experienced JAWS user will jow whether they want
to hear a list of menu options, or hear the page they have just
selected *from* the menu.

Frames are bad for lots of other reasons, but in and of themselves,
with a well designed site, they aren't always bad for *accessibility*
reasons.

Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.

In message <3e7k315897ckdrn34ptl3o28eugpacp64h (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
<thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:29:09 +0000, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk
wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.

Like anything else, it depends what you mean be accessibility.

'Accessibility' - as in "usability for people with disabilities" (w3c
WAI)

but if by accessibility you mean making your website available to e.g.
JAWS users, then frames can actually improve the way they access the
web.

For example, JAWS will stop at a frames site and tell the user
there are two frames, one is menu and the other is content. Which do
you want to hear? An experienced JAWS user will jow whether they want
to hear a list of menu options, or hear the page they have just
selected *from* the menu.

I think most modern readers work the same way.

Somebody pointed out to me (in one of the other groups) that a 2-frame
site (content plus navigation) can actually be easier for an AT user to
navigate than its non-frames equivalent on the basis that wherever you
are in the content, the navigation is only one keystroke away ;-)

Frames are bad for lots of other reasons,

Not really ......... unless you can suggest of one or two
'show-stoppers' ?

but in and of themselves,
with a well designed site, they aren't always bad for *accessibility*
reasons.

If the site is 'well designed', there shouldn't be *any* accessibility
problems. I think 'well designed' are the important words here.

Lemming

regards.

--
Jake