Question About Frames Usage?

[JohnnyCJohnny]

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

Thanks

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

Lynx! ;-)

--
Stanimir

[Peter Foti]

"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd**************************@posting.google.c om...

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

IE is the leading user agent these days... but that doesn't mean it's ok to
use frames (or to write HTML for IE only). If you code your site
semantically correct, then your site will be more accessible to people with
disabilities. For example, a blind person who uses an aural browser to read
the page to him/her... how do you think frames would be handled in that
situation? Not very well.

Regards,
Peter Foti

[StardogChampion]

"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd**************************@posting.google.c om...

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

Thanks

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[Brian]

JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use
browsers that are Frames compatible?
In the context of the www, I'd say that any assumption about your
visitors' browsing environment is unwise.
What are most people using these days? IE?

Who knows? Better question: why fret about something over which you
have no control? Design correctly, and let the browsers sort out the
details.

Some hints:

1. frames are rarely a good solution to any problem.
< http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/ >

2. Lynx doesn't do frames.

3. Google "sees" things largely as Lynx does.

4. Opera, a very advanced, modern ua, has a "no frames" browsing option.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Keith Bowes]

Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days? IE?

Lynx! ;-)

But Lynx is frames compatible. It displays the frames as links, and is
quite usable if the author gives the frames good name (not left, right,
bottom, framea, etc). Unfortunately, it doesn't support the "title"
attribute, which could give an even higher degree of accessibility.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible?
It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
are noframes-incompatible.

If you're still crazy enough to insist on using frames (their
inventor, i.e Netscape, seems to have given up using frames on their
own web pages, except for special purposes, within less than a year of
plonking down this misbegotten design on the W3C as a fait accompli).
What are most people using these days?
Something which has deliberately ruled itself out as a WWW browser, by
intentionally violating mandatory requirements of the relevant W3C and
IETF specifications.
IE?

You might say that...

But nevertheless, with a bit of author consideration, IE is capable of
browsing properly-made WWW pages, so there's no need to go designing
special page versions for it. After all, most of the folks who are
using IE have never made an explicit choice. They're accustomed to
what it does. If you want to also appeal to a discerning audience,
then design for the WWW, with due consideration of the letter and
spirit of their specifications, including the WAI. Doing frames
properly is a lot of work - the result still rates to be inferior.

Presumably, search engines are of interest to you also? After all, a
large proportion of web pages are found via a search engine. If a
would-be reader never finds your page in the first place, it really
doesn't matter whether their browser supports your frames or not.

--
"Sorry, your browser doesn't support frames" - dumb web site
"Sorry, your web author doesn't support frames" - me.

[Brian]

Keith Bowes wrote:

Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use
browsers that are Frames compatible? What are most people
using these days? IE?
Lynx! ;-)

But Lynx is frames compatible. It displays the frames as links, and
is quite usable if the author gives the frames good name (not left,
right, bottom, framea, etc).

Fair enough.
Unfortunately, it doesn't support the "title" attribute, which
could give an even higher degree of accessibility.

I happen to dislike its rendering of iframe. It shows a link to the
frame source in addition to the iframe element's content, but a
properly authored document already has a link to the src, with
suitable link text, as the iframe content. It leads to redundant
information. I'd guess the same issue arises with the noframe element.

Nitpicking, yes, but these things bug me.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

"Sorry, your browser doesn't support frames" - dumb web site
"Sorry, your web author doesn't support frames" - me.

rotfl. Good one, Mr. Flavell.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible?
It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
are noframes-incompatible.

I can't quite parse the double negative there. Opera, e.g., seems to
be capable of rendering the noframes element when in no-frames mode.
And Lynx has no trouble with noframes content. It appears that I have
misunderstood you.
"Sorry, your browser doesn't support frames" - dumb web site
"Sorry, your web author doesn't support frames" - me.

rotfl. Good one, Mr. Flavell. (Your sig separator is fine, of
course; I pasted that in because I found it so funny.)

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[David Dorward]

Brian wrote:

2. Lynx doesn't do frames.
Yes it does - it sees them as links.
3. Google "sees" things largely as Lynx does.

Orphan pages! What fun!

OK, with good <noframes> content and a smart robots.txt you can avoid this
problem.... it just takes a _lot_ of work and uses up about double[1] the
bandwidth of avoiding frames in the first place.

[1] Not counting style sheets, JavaScript, images, etc

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[David Dorward]

Brian wrote:

I happen to dislike its [lynx] rendering of iframe. It shows a link
to the
frame source in addition to the iframe element's content, but a
properly authored document already has a link to the src, with
suitable link text, as the iframe content. It leads to redundant
information.

A properly authored document is likely to have the content in the element
rather then a redundent link.

However, lynx is designed for the real world, and the real world includes
more then a few documents which are not authored properly. Turning the
<iframe> tag into a link is the best it can hope for to deal with most
iframes out there.

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[David Dorward]

Brian wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
are noframes-incompatible.

I can't quite parse the double negative there.

Most web users are using browsers which are capable of easily accessing a
website which does not use frames.

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Brian wrote:

It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
are noframes-incompatible.
I can't quite parse the double negative there. Opera, e.g., seems to
be capable of rendering the noframes element when in no-frames mode.
And Lynx has no trouble with noframes content.

And "most web users" are not using Opera nor Lynx. QED.
It appears that I have misunderstood you.

I don't think you did! "most web users" need extra author
consideration if they are to be empowered to access the no-frames
variant of the web site. Some of the others (can we call them the
"discerning minority"?) have the ability (and maybe also the
knowledge) to be able to insist on the noframed version, under their
own control, without help from the page author.

Sure: if the no-frames variant is nothing more than "Sorry, your
browser doesn't support frames", then all bets are off anyway, as I
hinted before.

cheers

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, David Dorward wrote:

Brian wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
are noframes-incompatible.

I can't quite parse the double negative there.

Most web users are using browsers which are capable of easily accessing a
website which does not use frames.

What you just said is true enough, in itself, but if that was intended
to be a translation of what I meant, then I'd have to deny it.

What I meant was "most web users are using browsers which cannot,
without additional help from the page author, access the noframes
variant of a site which uses frames". (Exceptions, as has already
been pointed out, are Opera and Lynx).

[JohnnyCJohnny]

Stanimir Stamenkov <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<bs***********@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>...

JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

Lynx! ;-)

Is Lynx a frames-compatible browser? What percentage of people use Lynx?

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

Is Lynx a frames-compatible browser?
First, you need to define "compatible". Lynx has no problem accessing
the content of framed sites. The frames are just a pointless extra
nuisance.
What percentage of people use Lynx?

What percentage of the world population are President of the USA,
for example? What conclusions do you draw from your answer?

As far as you're concerned, Lynx may be best thought of as a model of
what an indexing robot "sees" in a web site.

[Brian]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Brian wrote:

It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers
which are noframes-incompatible.
I can't quite parse the double negative there. Opera, e.g.,
seems to be capable of rendering the noframes element when in
no-frames mode. And Lynx has no trouble with noframes content.

And "most web users" are not using Opera nor Lynx. QED.

Ah, of course. And now that you've hit me over the head with it, your
comment above makes perfect sense. ("Light dawns on marble head...")
"most web users" need extra author consideration if they are to be
empowered to access the no-frames variant of the web site. Some of
the others (can we call them the "discerning minority"?) have the
ability (and maybe also the knowledge) to be able to insist on the
noframed version, under their own control, without help from the
page author.

Got it, and couldn't agree more.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[David Dorward]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, David Dorward wrote:

Brian wrote:

> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>> It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
>> are noframes-incompatible.

What you just said is true enough, in itself, but if that was intended
to be a translation of what I meant, then I'd have to deny it.

Whoops, I misread what you typed.

--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

[JohnnyCJohnny]

"StardogChampion" <st*************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<kC*********************@news-text.cableinet.net>...

"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd**************************@posting.google.c om...

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

Thanks

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Thanks! That pretty much answers my question. 96% of the browers
these days are IE of one form or another. That is my target audience.
Frames are OK to use.

[JohnnyCJohnny]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible?

It's pretty safe to say that most web users are using browsers which
are noframes-incompatible.

If you're still crazy enough to insist on using frames (their
inventor, i.e Netscape, seems to have given up using frames on their
own web pages, except for special purposes, within less than a year of
plonking down this misbegotten design on the W3C as a fait accompli).

What are most people using these days?

Something which has deliberately ruled itself out as a WWW browser, by
intentionally violating mandatory requirements of the relevant W3C and
IETF specifications.

IE?

You might say that...

But nevertheless, with a bit of author consideration, IE is capable of
browsing properly-made WWW pages, so there's no need to go designing
special page versions for it. After all, most of the folks who are
using IE have never made an explicit choice. They're accustomed to
what it does. If you want to also appeal to a discerning audience,
then design for the WWW, with due consideration of the letter and
spirit of their specifications, including the WAI. Doing frames
properly is a lot of work - the result still rates to be inferior.

Presumably, search engines are of interest to you also? After all, a
large proportion of web pages are found via a search engine. If a
would-be reader never finds your page in the first place, it really
doesn't matter whether their browser supports your frames or not.

I want to use frames for navagation purposes on my company's website.
It is a very practical solution to the navigation problems I've been
having in my design. There are still plenty of websites that use
frames, and 96% of webbrowsers (the target audience for my company)
are using IE, so I feel OK designing a site around frames.

[jake]

In message <vv************@corp.supernews.com>, Peter Foti
<pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> writes

"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd**************************@posting.google. com...

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?
IE is the leading user agent these days... but that doesn't mean it's ok to
use frames (or to write HTML for IE only). If you code your site
semantically correct, then your site will be more accessible to people with
disabilities. For example, a blind person who uses an aural browser to read
the page to him/her... how do you think frames would be handled in that
situation? Not very well.

Actually, a modern screen-reader/voice browser doesn't have any problems
with navigating a frames-based site. On entering the site I can ask for
frames details and be told (a) how many frames (b) what they are.

I can then simply toggle between frames.

So. There's no real problems ...... just the annoyance of having to
toggle between frames -- especially if it's the classic 3-frame site:
(1) Company/Organisation banner
(2) Menu
(3) Main content.

In most cases, though, there's really nothing to be gained by using
frames for this kind of set-up.

regards.
Regards,
Peter Foti

--
Jake

[Darin McGrew]

"StardogChampion" <st*************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

JohnnyCJohnny <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote: Thanks! That pretty much answers my question. 96% of the browers
these days are IE of one form or another. That is my target audience.
Or at least, they claim to be MSIE in one form or another. Someone recently
posted stats that indicated that a surprisingly large share of the browsers
that claim to be MSIE do not process Microsoft's "conditional comments",
and thus, are not really MSIE.

See also http://webtips.dantobias.com/brand-x/useragent.html
Frames are OK to use.

Many of the problems caused by frames have nothing to do with whether most
browsers support them:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/fra...frame-problems
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The handwriting on the wall may mean you need a notepad by the phone."

[Mark Parnell]

On 30 Dec 2003 15:05:01 -0800, JohnnyCJohnny declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

I want to use frames for navagation purposes on my company's website.
Why?
It is a very practical solution to the navigation problems I've been
having in my design.
I doubt it. Chances are that if you tell us what it is you are actually
trying to achieve, there is at least one better way of doing it.
There are still plenty of websites that use
frames, and 96% of webbrowsers (the target audience for my company)
Or 85%, or 76.23%, or any other figure you feel like making up.
http://j3e.de/statistics_lie.html
are using IE, so I feel OK designing a site around frames.

It's highly unlikely that the figure is *that* high (see the link
above), though it is also unlikely anyone will try to tell you that IE
doesn't hold the majority (just not 96%).

As Alan said, search engines don't tend to like frames much, and that's
just one of the problems.

http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzo...eb/frames.html
http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

[unnecessarily comprehensive quotage now excised]

Presumably, search engines are of interest to you also? After all, a
large proportion of web pages are found via a search engine. If a
would-be reader never finds your page in the first place, it really
doesn't matter whether their browser supports your frames or not.
I want to use frames for navagation purposes on my company's website.

Of course you do; and like so many before you, you've tailored your
questions to ensure that you get the answer that you'd already decided
upon. Well, Usenet is not so naive as to fall for that trick - it's
not as if there hasn't been a steady procession of frames-merchants
trying the same manoeuvre before - but that doesn't matter, because
you're going to disregard any answers which disagree with your
preconceived notion anyway.
It is a very practical solution to the navigation problems I've been
having in my design.
If that's the answer, then there was something wrong with the
question.
There are still plenty of websites that use frames,
Which gives you the opportunity to do better. But you've already
decided not to.
and 96%
....of statistics are made up...
of webbrowsers (the target audience for my company)
So you're not interested in the "www" part of the name of this group.
No surprises there. Even the customers of sites that sell exclusively
MS software have been known to use other vendors' products too - just
to take one example, cellphone/browser combinations.
are using IE,
....or sending a client agent string which appears to be IE, if only to
compensate for the kind of web designer that you appear to be...
so I feel OK designing a site around frames.

I don't think any of us doubted that from the outset. Frames
designers have the kind of one-track visual-only approach that's
incompatible even with MSIE, when one takes into account all the
situations in which MSIE gets used (have you tried a framed site on
IBM HPR yet? No, of course you haven't - how silly of me to ask.)

[JohnnyCJohnny]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

[unnecessarily comprehensive quotage now excised]

Presumably, search engines are of interest to you also? After all, a
large proportion of web pages are found via a search engine. If a
would-be reader never finds your page in the first place, it really
doesn't matter whether their browser supports your frames or not.

I want to use frames for navagation purposes on my company's website.

Of course you do; and like so many before you, you've tailored your
questions to ensure that you get the answer that you'd already decided
upon. Well, Usenet is not so naive as to fall for that trick - it's
not as if there hasn't been a steady procession of frames-merchants
trying the same manoeuvre before - but that doesn't matter, because
you're going to disregard any answers which disagree with your
preconceived notion anyway.

It is a very practical solution to the navigation problems I've been
having in my design.

If that's the answer, then there was something wrong with the
question.

There are still plenty of websites that use frames,

Which gives you the opportunity to do better. But you've already
decided not to.

and 96%

...of statistics are made up...

of webbrowsers (the target audience for my company)

So you're not interested in the "www" part of the name of this group.
No surprises there. Even the customers of sites that sell exclusively
MS software have been known to use other vendors' products too - just
to take one example, cellphone/browser combinations.

are using IE,

...or sending a client agent string which appears to be IE, if only to
compensate for the kind of web designer that you appear to be...

so I feel OK designing a site around frames.

I don't think any of us doubted that from the outset. Frames
designers have the kind of one-track visual-only approach that's
incompatible even with MSIE, when one takes into account all the
situations in which MSIE gets used (have you tried a framed site on
IBM HPR yet? No, of course you haven't - how silly of me to ask.)

You need to get a friggin life. You act as though you have a personal
interest in how people design their websites?!? It's like a political
debate to you. Frames are not the end of the world. When I surf the
Internet, frames never cause me problems these days, I hardly even
know they are there. Frames used to be more of an issue back in the
late 1990s, when there were a whole bunch of browser, some of which
didn't use frames. I'm not designing an ecommerce site that needs to
reach 99.9% of web users. It's just a run-of-the-mill company website
(which is designed to inform our potential customers about our
company) that probably gets only around 1,000 hits a year. If frames
are the best solution to my navigation problems, then that's what I'll
go with. Thanks for your input, no matter how bizarely anti-frames
biased it is.

[Harlan Messinger]

"jake" <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mq**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk...

In message <vv************@corp.supernews.com>, Peter Foti
<pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> writes

"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd**************************@posting.google. com...

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

IE is the leading user agent these days... but that doesn't mean it's ok touse frames (or to write HTML for IE only). If you code your site
semantically correct, then your site will be more accessible to people withdisabilities. For example, a blind person who uses an aural browser to readthe page to him/her... how do you think frames would be handled in that
situation? Not very well.

Actually, a modern screen-reader/voice browser doesn't have any problems
with navigating a frames-based site. On entering the site I can ask for
frames details and be told (a) how many frames (b) what they are.

I can then simply toggle between frames.

So. There's no real problems ...... just the annoyance of having to
toggle between frames -- especially if it's the classic 3-frame site:
(1) Company/Organisation banner
(2) Menu
(3) Main content.

Which, now that aural browsers are handling frames, is probably even better.
Without frames, you have the annoyance of sitting through the banner and top
links before getting to the content, unless the developer has put a "skip
navigation" link at the top. And then, when you *want* to get back to the
navigation, you have to go to the links list, or go to the top of the page
and tab up to them, which isn't any easier than going to the links *frame*.
With the frames approach, the banner is *always* out of the way, and the nav
links are out of the way until you want them, at which time they are easily
reached.

There are other reasons to avoid frames, but aural browsers are not one of
them. (To me, the best reason to avoid them is that there isn't a good way
for people to bookmark an arbitrary page on your site if you use them. If
they're savvy, they can find out the page that is the source of the main
content, but if they save that as a Favorite, when they return to it they
will see it in the full browser, and the banner and navigation will be
missing.)

[Harlan Messinger]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...

I don't think any of us doubted that from the outset. Frames
designers have the kind of one-track visual-only approach that's
incompatible even with MSIE, when one takes into account all the
situations in which MSIE gets used (have you tried a framed site on
IBM HPR yet? No, of course you haven't - how silly of me to ask.)

I have, and it works fine as far as I can tell. When you browse to a page,
it tells you how many frames there are, and starts you on the last one.
Ctrl-E presents a frame selection list. Ctrl-Tab moves from frame to frame.
What's not to like? There are reasons not to use frames, but HPR isn't one
of them.

[Harlan Messinger]

"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd**************************@posting.google.c om...

If frames
are the best solution to my navigation problems, then that's what I'll
go with.

Just out of curiosity, what is so special about your navigation "problems"
that the same kinds of non-frames-based methods that most other developers
are using these days wouldn't work for you? Well, I can think of one: if
you're using static pages, then it's tedious to maintain--and change--a
uniform look and feel, and frames can help. But even if you have access to
nothing more than server-side includes, it's better than using frames.

[C A Upsdell]

"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd**************************@posting.google.c om...

Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
IE?

Opera has an option to disable frames.

Yes, most use IE, but a growing number do not. A lot of people using OS X
are using Safari; and a growing number, about 6% now, are using Gecko-based
browsers ... 20% on my site. See
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

[jake]

In message <bs************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>, Harlan
Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> writes

"jake" <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mq**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk...

In message <vv************@corp.supernews.com>, Peter Foti
<pe****@systolicNOSPAMnetworks.com> writes

>"JohnnyCJohnny" <jo****@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>news:cd**************************@posting.google. com...
>> Is it pretty safe to say that almost all web surfers now use browsers
>> that are Frames compatible? What are most people using these days?
>> IE?
>
>IE is the leading user agent these days... but that doesn't mean it's okto >use frames (or to write HTML for IE only). If you code your site
>semantically correct, then your site will be more accessible to peoplewith >disabilities. For example, a blind person who uses an aural browser toread >the page to him/her... how do you think frames would be handled in that
>situation? Not very well.

Actually, a modern screen-reader/voice browser doesn't have any problems
with navigating a frames-based site. On entering the site I can ask for
frames details and be told (a) how many frames (b) what they are.

I can then simply toggle between frames.

So. There's no real problems ...... just the annoyance of having to
toggle between frames -- especially if it's the classic 3-frame site:
(1) Company/Organisation banner
(2) Menu
(3) Main content.

Which, now that aural browsers are handling frames, is probably even better.
Without frames, you have the annoyance of sitting through the banner and top
links before getting to the content, unless the developer has put a "skip
navigation" link at the top. And then, when you *want* to get back to the
navigation, you have to go to the links list, or go to the top of the page
and tab up to them, which isn't any easier than going to the links *frame*.
With the frames approach, the banner is *always* out of the way, and the nav
links are out of the way until you want them, at which time they are easily
reached.

[snip]
That's an interesting way to look at it ;-)

Now, if only authors of frames-based sites knew about titling frames so
that users can tell what they are and how they relate to each other
........

regards.
--
Jake

[jake]

In message <cd**************************@posting.google.com >,
JohnnyCJohnny <jo****@patmedia.net> writes
[snip]

I'm not designing an ecommerce site that needs to
reach 99.9% of web users. It's just a run-of-the-mill company website
(which is designed to inform our potential customers about our
company) that probably gets only around 1,000 hits a year. If frames
are the best solution to my navigation problems, then that's what I'll
go with.

[snip]

In which case, as you're the author, go with what works best in *your*
situation.

If your frames-based site delivers the goods, why worry?
regards.

--
Jake

[Neal]

"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:4j********************@news04.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

Opera has an option to disable frames.

Where do you find that option?

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:

Without frames, you have the annoyance of sitting through the banner
and top links before getting to the content,
Which is why I've always been opposed to beginning normal content
pages with that kind of extraneous clutter.
unless the developer has put a "skip navigation" link at the top.

Which IMHO is just an admission that the author realised that their
design was suboptimal - but insisted on following the "conventional
page" design regardless.

Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but I'm
not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers have a
navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>, as well as a keycommand
to go to the foot of the page where navigation links can be found (we
hope).

(Of course, pages which are designed to be primarily navigation pages
are a different matter. In the foregoing, I'm talking about pages
whose primary purpose is to present some joined-up content.)

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

You need to get a friggin life.

Yeah, the killfile was waiting for that.

[Steve Pugh]

"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote:

"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@[e-mail]> wrote:

Opera has an option to disable frames.

Where do you find that option?

Preferences > Page Style offers the options
Enable frames
Enable inline frames
Show active frame border

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Brian]

Neal wrote:

"C A Upsdell" wrote

Opera has an option to disable frames.

Where do you find that option?

Preferences > Page style

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Neal]

Thanks guys

[Harlan Messinger]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:

Without frames, you have the annoyance of sitting through the banner
and top links before getting to the content,
Which is why I've always been opposed to beginning normal content
pages with that kind of extraneous clutter.

unless the developer has put a "skip navigation" link at the top.

Which IMHO is just an admission that the author realised that their
design was suboptimal - but insisted on following the "conventional
page" design regardless.

Web design is not a battle. Making a design serve double duty isn't an
admission of anything, and "optimality" does not require designing with
*only* the lowest common denominator in mind.

Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but I'm
not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers have a
navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>,
I remember reading about this like two or three years ago and haven't seen
anything about it since. I don't even remember what it's called. Give me a
hint? I'd like to look it up on W3C. What browsers support it? What browsers
(and, therefore, which users) does one have to foresake in order to use it?
Do I have any control over how the resulting links look in a graphical
browser?
as well as a keycommand
to go to the foot of the page where navigation links can be found (we
hope).

How do sighted users know that there are nav links at the bottom? Optimality
absolutely requires that you not make your users hunt for the tools they
need to use your site. That's why people put them at the top.

[Eric Bohlman]

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:bs************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de:

Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but
I'm not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers
have a navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>,

I remember reading about this like two or three years ago and haven't
seen anything about it since. I don't even remember what it's called.
Give me a hint? I'd like to look it up on W3C. What browsers support
it? What browsers (and, therefore, which users) does one have to
foresake in order to use it? Do I have any control over how the
resulting links look in a graphical browser?

At least Opera 7.x, recent Mozillas, and Lynx support it. Browsers that
don't support it simply ignore it, so you aren't excluding anyone unless
you use it as the sole means of site navigation (which you shouldn't).
Browsers that support it usually display the links in a toolbar or sidebar
which is part of the browser chrome and is therefore outside your control.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:

Web design is not a battle.
Shouldn't be, I agree
Making a design serve double duty isn't an admission of anything,
Web designs serve multiple duties, whether we intend it or not. My
aim as author is to co-operate with those multiple duties, rather than
trying to impose my own ideas of what a web site ought to be for.

But I stand by my previous remark, nevertheless. That "jump to
content"-type link is a workaround for a problem that would have been
better not created in the first place.
and "optimality" does not require designing with
*only* the lowest common denominator in mind.
Oh dear. I can see that my point has been comprehensively missed.
Well, maybe someone else can explain it better.

Well, OK, sometimes it can be better to do what people expect; but I'm
not sure that this is such a case. Anyway, the better browsers have a
navigation mechanism with <link rel/rev=...>,

I remember reading about this like two or three years ago and haven't seen
anything about it since. I don't even remember what it's called.

For example, http://www.subotnik.net/html/link
What browsers support it?
For example, MSIE 5.* (see the cited web page for an explanation)
What browsers (and, therefore, which users) does one have to
foresake in order to use it?
None, since it's an optional extra. By all means provide equivalent
links by <a href=...> in your page - but preferably not in a way
which obstructs access to the page's substantive content.
Do I have any control over how the resulting links look in a graphical
browser?
Nope: and that's not a bug, it's a (useability) feature.
Optimality absolutely requires that you not make your users hunt for
the tools they need to use your site.
Quite right. Their Back button is always at hand, and I'd do nothing
to interfere with that.
That's why people put them at the top.

If the page is what they want, then they want to read its substantive
content first.

If the page is not what they want, then I assume they'd want to leave
(e.g to the search index which brought them to my page) to see if they
can find something which better meets their needs.

The stuff that just happens to be elsewhere on my site is of only
passing relevance. If they're interested in composing proper alt
texts, why would I want to direct them to my page about orange
marmalade; or vice versa? If they want to see what else I have on
offer, the tools are there, and in no way hidden, but I'm not going to
hit them in the face with them.

Happy new year.