same address new page without using frames?

[wallster]

please keep the flaming to a minimum (a bucket of water is next to me)
but I have a question someone here might be able to explain in basic
terms for a dunce like me.
I helped a friend put together a website that uses his domain name and
url directs to my server. It has a (sorry) flash intro page that
continues to his main page. When I click on a navigation button, the
address reverts back to my webpage address. Without using shitty frames
design, how can i keep the navigated links keep the original address?
I'm using frontpage. Here's the website:
http://www.julicher-racing.com
thanks in advance.

wall

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [Toby Inkster] on Sunday 04 September 2005 12:11 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

The text "If your browser does not support Flash, click here" appears
below the Flash object

Though it assumes that the visitor owns a device capable of "clicking".

Even if they do own one, it seems rather archaic to insist on its use in
this current era of voice-controlled browsers.

The anchor text of links in that page always looks laughable to me, but I
promised myself not to spend much time on that long-forgotten Web site. I
guess I ought to have said something like:

"If you browser does not support Flash, just holler, click <here>, or go to
a <different site>. If the design of this site infuriates you, I suggest
Prozak with a glass of water. Complaints by E-mail to my spam trap at
ro*@microsoft.c om; I like big attachments too, especially ones that mess
about with my Registry"

To phrase this much more professionally, I would replace "holler" with
"shout". That'll do... time to make some changes to the front page...

....or not.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Lions are like hippie tigers"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
5:55pm up 11 days 6:06, 3 users, load average: 0.72, 0.36, 0.38

[David Dorward]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

The text "If your browser does not support Flash, click here"

I said _with_ what, not _on_ what. Not everybody uses a pointing device.

That's a good point, which very few pay attention too (see quote in
signature). Could you not use TAB to jump between elements or links
though?
That wouldn't be a "click" though. Mouse/Trackball buttons get clicked,
keyboard keys get pressed (or sometimes tapped).
I am a big fan of accesskeys,
I'm not. All browser implementations suck.
which I even use excessively. Unfortunately, there are collisions involved
with them.

Exactly - and in those few browsers where that problem doesn't exist
(through using a different activation key) there is still a lack of methods
to inform the user of the existence of the accesskeys.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

I am a big fan of accesskeys,
They were recommended by the first-issue WAI guidelines, certainly,
but, as folks have followed those guidelines, I think the shortcomings
of the available browsers (known only too well already to those who
needed accessibility, I'm told) have become more widely known, to the
extent that accesskeys have been described as "a solution in search of
an implementation" , and I know quite a few people who take an informed
interest in accessibility who are now advising *against* providing
them, but rather, recommending to give more thought to a logical
design of their navigation links, so that they don't get in the way of
accessing the content.
which I even use excessively. Unfortunately, there are collisions
involved with them. I have other accelerator collisions already (at
O/S-level).

Right.

[Shawn K. Quinn]

begin quotation
from Roy Schestowitz <ne********@sch estowitz.com>
in message <df**********@g odfrey.mcc.ac.u k>
posted at 2005-09-04T17:01

The anchor text of links in that page always looks laughable to me, but I
promised myself not to spend much time on that long-forgotten Web site. I
guess I ought to have said something like: "If you browser does not support Flash, just holler, click <here>,

I think you're completely missing the point here. Some users do not use
a mouse with their Web browser. Some Web browsers are not capable of
handling mouse input. Some browsing situations use the mouse only for
copying and pasting text, not moving a pointer.

"Click here" looks *really* stupid printed out.
"Click here" sounds *really* stupid read aloud.
"Click here" is capable of *really* confusing users in those browsing
situations I mentioned above.

--
___ _ _____ |*|
/ __| |/ / _ \ |*| Shawn K. Quinn
\__ \ ' < (_) | |*| sk*****@speakea sy.net
|___/_|\_\__\_\ |*| Houston, TX, USA

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [Alan J. Flavell] on Sunday 04 September 2005 18:54 \__

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

I am a big fan of accesskeys,

They were recommended by the first-issue WAI guidelines, certainly,
but, as folks have followed those guidelines, I think the shortcomings
of the available browsers (known only too well already to those who
needed accessibility, I'm told) have become more widely known, to the
extent that accesskeys have been described as "a solution in search of
an implementation" , and I know quite a few people who take an informed
interest in accessibility who are now advising *against* providing
them, but rather, recommending to give more thought to a logical
design of their navigation links, so that they don't get in the way of
accessing the content.

which I even use excessively. Unfortunately, there are collisions
involved with them. I have other accelerator collisions already (at
O/S-level).

Right.

Very interesting, Alan.

One of my so-called "possible projects", which I have carried in my Palm for
over a year, is dynamic allocation of accesskeys (on-line or off-line),
which may enables the user to browse pages without a mouse (and without
hitting TAB a zillion times). Since letters get underlined (or anything
else that can be reflected upon in a stylesheet), link assignments can be
quickly interpreted.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Have you compiled your kernel today?"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
1:35pm up 12 days 22:55, 3 users, load average: 0.18, 0.09, 0.09

[Hostingforabuck]

If he decides to use our services, we will try to make the process as
quick and painless as possible.

Mike
www.Hostingforabuck.com
You could pay more....but why would you?

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [Hostingforabuck] on Thursday 08 September 2005 02:16 \__

If he decides to use our services, we will try to make the process as
quick and painless as possible.

Mike
www.Hostingforabuck.com
You could pay more....but why would you?

Hi Mike,

I didn't mean to discourge anyone from registerting with
www.Hostingforabuck.com. In fact, I am quite impressed by what I saw. Best
of luck to you guys!

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
5:20am up 15 days 7:12, 3 users, load average: 1.91, 1.47, 0.94

[Hostingforabuck]

Thanks for the praise. We are still a small outfit, and unlike some
hosts out there, actually believe in customer service. We are trying to
break the $4.95 a month mold that many hosts charge for their basic
plans, which many times offer less than our basic plan. Currently, it
is what the market will bear, not, what the market should be. We are of
the old school, we would rather make a dollar profit from 100 people,
than $100 from one person.
Mike
www.Hostingforabuck.com
You could pay more....but why would you?

[GEO Me]

On 9 Sep 2005 16:13:02 -0700, "Hostingforabuc k"
<Ho************ *@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike wrote:
Thanks for the praise. We are still a small outfit, and unlike some
hosts out there, actually believe in customer service. We are trying to
break the $4.95 a month mold that many hosts charge for their basic
plans, which many times offer less than our basic plan. Currently, it
is what the market will bear, not, what the market should be. We are of
the old school, we would rather make a dollar profit from 100 people,
than $100 from one person.

How do you register? It seems that one would have to allow
JavaScript and an unsecure connection in order to be able to use your
services.

Geo

[Hostingforabuck]

Our helpdesk script is the only one that uses java. Our registration
pages are all php. Payment is processed online through paypal, or via
snail-mail. We do not collect any type of financial information from
you. Nor do we release our customers information to anyone. Only a
Court order would force us to even reveal the names of any of our
subscribers.