By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,614 Members | 2,518 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,614 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Are frames still frowned upon?

P: n/a
I know Jakob Neilsen and a bunch of other usability advocates and
critics usually frown on usage frames. However, most people probably
seem to have at least version 5 of IE or newer and I am toying with the
idea of just using a small topframe in my site design.

Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames? I
personally don't mind sites with them if the borders are hidden and they
are well-designed...

Thanks,

Scott
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
34 Replies


P: n/a
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:47:58 -0700, s c o t t declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames?


I take it you haven't checked the archives yet? (Hint: now would be a
good time)

And you might want to don your flame-retardent suit. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
In article <bt*********@news01.intel.com>, s c o t t <no***@nospam.com> wrote:
I know Jakob Neilsen and a bunch of other usability advocates and
critics usually frown on usage frames. However, most people probably
seem to have at least version 5 of IE or newer and I am toying with the
idea of just using a small topframe in my site design.


The design flaws of frames does not go away when using "at least version
5 of IE".

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
It seems "s c o t t" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html in
article <bt*********@news01.intel.com>:
Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames?


How many times do you think we should write out the same arguments?

Read the FAQ, dammit. Or search Google for the other nine thousand
nine hundred ninety-nine threads about this.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
s c o t t wrote:
I know Jakob Neilsen and a bunch of other usability advocates and
critics usually frown on usage frames. However, most people probably
seem to have at least version 5 of IE or newer


The issue isn't what browser most people are using. The issue is that
the good idea of splitting a window into independent sections was badly
executed with frames. And the flaws of frames seem even more bad now
that most common browsers support CSS positioning (and SSI is on
virtually every server).

Also, frames weren't added to HTML until version 4.0. And even then,
they were added to the lowest of doctypes. Now, XHTML 1.1 doesn't have
frames at all.

Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
s c o t t wrote:
...
Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames?


yep - frames are evil (hint: look it up)

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a

"s c o t t" <no***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bt*********@news01.intel.com...
I know Jakob Neilsen and a bunch of other usability advocates and critics usually frown on usage frames. However, most people probably seem to have at least version 5 of IE or newer and I am toying with the idea of just using a small topframe in my site design.

Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames? I personally don't mind sites with them if the borders are hidden and they are well-designed...


Well, as tired as the topic is, I don't mind going to it one more
time.

1) Frames cause it to be impossible for users to bookmark a page
in your site.

2) Frames make it bad for the user who hits a page with no
navigation from a search engine.

3) Frames are notoriously hard on browsers when attempting to
print a page out.

4) Site maintenance is a bigger hassle than other techniques
which accmplish better results.

In short, friends don't let friends use frames.

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
MH
> Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames?

It very much reminds me of the "Go To statement considered harmful"
discussion of almost 40 years ago.
You just work with the tools that are available or in fashion at a certain
moment in time.

-------
MH
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
MH wrote:
Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames?

It very much reminds me of the "Go To statement considered harmful"
discussion of almost 40 years ago.
You just work with the tools that are available or in fashion at a certain
moment in time.


The difference is that that the goto statement is simply bad practice
(hint: use procedures (void functions in C)) that wouldn't affect
end-users. However, frames are a usability disaster that may have made
sense to use five years ago, but there are simply better ways to do it now.

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Keith Bowes wrote:
However, frames are a usability disaster that may have made
sense to use five years ago,
I think it's fair to say that the W3C team to which Netscape
"presented" their frames design, way back, immediately recognised the
fundamental shortcomings, and asked Netscape to go away and have a
re-think. But Netscape weren't really presenting a design - they were
presenting an already-implemented structure, and weren't going to give
up that easily.

It's really bizarre to me that after so many years and so much
discussion, naive persons can stand up and ask whether frames are OK
yet. Frames haven't got substantially better in any fundamental sense
since they were launched in that unsatisfactory way. And it's
instructive that Netscape themselves stopped using them on their own
web site relatively soon after the launch, except for some special
purposes.

A few of the less fundamental practical issues have been sort-of
addressed by browsers in the meantime, but the fundamental issues are
still, well, "fundamental", and they aren't going away simply by the
lapse of time. And most web users still have no idea how to access
the noframes alternative when frames do not meet their requirements
(and of course on top of that, the provision of a fully functional
noframes version ican be a lot of work - but unavoidable if
accessibility guidelines are to be met).
but there are simply better ways to do it now.


To "do" what, though? The frames design attempted to do something
that shouldn't be done by HTML page authors anyway, since it's a
purely presentational paradigm: the presentation of link relationships
ought to be a function of web browsers, based on structural link
metainformation to be provided by the authors. There's been
considerable discussion in that direction, but I don't think there's a
fully viable WWW solution for it yet.

Meantime, there are certainly better ways of including navigational
information into pages, I'm not arguing for a moment about that.
But, like so much that came from Netscape back in those days, the
introduction of unwanted presentational clutter (presentational
quasi-HTML such as went into HTML/3.2(spit) just as much as frames and
other such junk) has significantly delayed the development of genuine
functionality. Some of it we're starting to overcome, thank goodness,
but other stuff is still haunting us.

cheers
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Keith Bowes wrote:

[snip]
but there are simply better ways to do it now.


To "do" what, though? The frames design attempted to do something
that shouldn't be done by HTML page authors anyway, since it's a
purely presentational paradigm: the presentation of link relationships
ought to be a function of web browsers, based on structural link
metainformation to be provided by the authors. There's been
considerable discussion in that direction, but I don't think there's a
fully viable WWW solution for it yet.

[snip]

I don't believe it is purely presentational. There is some "communication"
logic behind Frames, compared with alternatives, that deserves an attempt at a
solution in future. But your statement about need for the metainformation
suggests that we probably agree about the problem to be solved.

Frames are, or can be, an attempt to to manage 2 separate components about the
presentation. One is about the web site, and the other is about the specific
page. What the author is often attempting to communicate about the web site is
site-identification plus site-navigation (plus other site-notes). These may be
the top frame and the left frame. But we may agree that we shouldn't re-send
all of that for each page-fetch. It should be sufficient for the specific
page's metainformation to identify that, and suggest the layout, leaving the
browser to handle the separate fetches, cacheing, etc.

Where we perhaps differ is the in the degree to which the author (on behalf of
the web site owner & designer) should specify the visual-design proposals as
part of the metainformation. This can be very important. Not just because the
author may have access to specific research that suggests that for this site,
certain layouts work better than others. (Eg. a children's site may need lots
of "bells & whistles", while a news site may be better off conforming to the
expectations raised by other news sites instead of what the browser developer
happens to favour). But also because this can be a key feature of corporate
identity. People may dispute the degree to which corporate identity rules
matter, but there is no doubt that they are here to stay, because they are
certainly strongly believed to be important.

Any attempt to extend metainformation without giving site-owners & designers
the ability to send the layout principles too will inevitably be circumvented.
It is why simple layout tables are sensible at the moment. They are a sounder
way of sending the layout principles than CSS, which tends to state the
implementation proposal not the design proposal, and therefore breaks when not
of the proposed implementation techniques are supported by the browser.

I played around with some ideas for alternatives to Frames for the 5-box
3-column layout that is so popular (with some good reasons) with news sites:
<object>, <iframe>, and hybrids:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_5_3/

But all of these are "fixes" and "workarounds", and miss a key point. We lack
the ability to transmit the site (rather than page) model, and we lack the
ability to transmit the layout design intentions (rather than a particular
implementation of them) via HTML & CSS. Hence the need for extra
metainformation, which we agree upon.

xFrames may help - they appear to be an attempt at least to avoid the
bookmarking problems, and probably more. But they still appear to transmit the
chosen implementation, rather than the design model.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:

search Google for the other nine thousand
nine hundred ninety-nine threads about this.


....you take one down, and pass it around, 9,998 threads in ciwah...

:-D

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

Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Barry Pearson wrote:
I played around with some ideas for alternatives to Frames for the 5-box
3-column layout that is so popular (with some good reasons) with news sites:
<object>, <iframe>, and hybrids:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_5_3/

But all of these are "fixes" and "workarounds", and miss a key point. We lack
the ability to transmit the site (rather than page) model, and we lack the
ability to transmit the layout design intentions (rather than a particular
implementation of them) via HTML & CSS. Hence the need for extra
metainformation, which we agree upon.

xFrames may help - they appear to be an attempt at least to avoid the
bookmarking problems, and probably more. But they still appear to transmit the
chosen implementation, rather than the design model.

Okay, thanks to the several of you who took the time to help out an
ignorant newbie. I am not new to forums or the web by any means, but
this is my first crack at using a news reader and I cannot help but
claim ignorance to this interface. I am still exploring this so forgive
me if I stumble once or twice before I know it all. I expected a few
flames, but hell, if there are nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine
threads about this I figured some may have just rolled their eyes and
moved on without responding.

Again, thanks to those who provided input. It is hard to search for
things if you dont' know what to search for and I have not heard of
xFrames before but I am Googling right now on it. I don't see many
other inquiries here that couldn't have been answered with a quick
search on Google, yet those questions get answered. People come here
for discussions, to help and be helped...

Take care,

Scott
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
It seems "s c o t t" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html in
article <bt**********@news01.intel.com>:
I am still exploring this so forgive
me if I stumble once or twice before I know it all.
How hard is it to go to Google:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
It is hard to search for things if you dont' know what to search for


Come on, this isn't rocket surgery. Let's use our heads, shall we?

The group is comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, so we put that in
"newsgroup".

We want to know about frames, so we put "frames" in "Subject".

We don't want stuff from ten years ago, so we specify dates starting
with 1 Jan 2003.

And what do we see: The very first hit is headed "Why are frames
evil?" and is dated February 2003. And there's quite a few others
too.

Remember that the net is like god: it helps those who help
themselves.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
s c o t t <no***@nospam.com> wrote in news:bt*********@news01.intel.com:
I know Jakob Neilsen and a bunch of other usability advocates and
critics usually frown on usage frames. However, most people probably
seem to have at least version 5 of IE or newer and I am toying with the
idea of just using a small topframe in my site design.

Do any of you have strong opinions either for or against frames? I
personally don't mind sites with them if the borders are hidden and they
are well-designed...


My views differ from the rest of the world, Think inside the box! :-)

I have a huge animation (ok I know everyone hates them) at the top of my
page. Also some navigation buttons with javascript to make them highlight
with mouseover events etc. I wouldn't want to add all that to each and
every page on my site (especially static pages). I only use server side
scripts when I really need them. Static pages are much faster than scripts,
and give a sence of independance.

When browsing a non-frames site I tend to "Open-in-new-window" more than
with frames. Going back can take just as long to load as it loaded the
first time just because the script decided it should show a different ad
banner. For me a bad example is http://www.brothersoft.com/
sometimes (depending on how bussy it is) this page can take ages to load.
On the other hand, to put all that (navigation+ads) in a navigation frame
wouldn't leave any space for the content on some screens :-)

Use frames but leave an alternative. Make sure your pages have links to the
rest of your site with their own navigation bar, for mobile devices,
screenreaders, and for those who dont come thrugh the door (99% if well
raited in search engines) and for Google's sake (google gives pages with
links a higher priority).

Use some Javascript for the navigation frame page so that if it loads as
the top page, it redirects to the main page (google will obviously link to
your navigation frame because of all the links).

<ducking some rotten eggs and tomato's>
Cheers!

--
Add articles with optional images to news/events pages via FTP
News Updater: http://www.xmlssoftware.com/NUpdater
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Louis Somers wrote:
[snip]
I have a huge animation (ok I know everyone hates them) at the top of my
page. Also some navigation buttons with javascript to make them highlight
with mouseover events etc. I wouldn't want to add all that to each and
every page on my site (especially static pages). I only use server side
scripts when I really need them. Static pages are much faster than
scripts, and give a sence of independance.
Then use a preprocessor, as mentioned in the FAQ:

<URL:http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/design.html#include-file>

That's completely transparent to the end-user and doesn't cause the problems
that frames do.

Use some Javascript for the navigation frame page so that if it loads as
the top page, it redirects to the main page (google will obviously link to
your navigation frame because of all the links).


I hate this behaviour. I often use the "Show only this frame" feature in
Firebird to escape frames; the last thing I want is to be put back where I
started (or, in many cases, lose my place altogether in the website and be
left at the main page).
--
Jim Dabell

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Jim Dabell <ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote in
news:-f********************@giganews.com:
Use some Javascript for the navigation frame page so that if it loads
as the top page, it redirects to the main page (google will obviously
link to your navigation frame because of all the links).


I hate this behaviour. I often use the "Show only this frame" feature
in Firebird to escape frames; the last thing I want is to be put back
where I started (or, in many cases, lose my place altogether in the
website and be left at the main page).


I usually only do this with frames containing many links (the navigation
frame for example), likely to be refered to by google. Content should be
viewed any way the user wants it, especially when using a screenreader or
mobile device. Usually I try to provide a sitemap, or a link to one in the
noframes section.

--
Add articles with optional images to news/events pages via FTP
News Updater: http://www.xmlssoftware.com/NUpdater
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Louis Somers wrote:
My views differ from the rest of the world,
Ahem...
Think inside the box! :-)
Or as the Germans say, "Warum einfach, wenn´s auch kompliziert geht?"
(roughly: why [make it] simple, when you can do it complicated?)
I have a huge animation
That's your first problem, then.
(ok I know everyone hates them)
See, you're not entirely on the dark side.
Also some navigation buttons with javascript to make them highlight
with mouseover events etc.
Or not, depending on the presentation situation. But what does this
help us to understand HTML page issues and the price of framesets?
I wouldn't want to add all that to each and
every page on my site (especially static pages).
You're not all bad, then.
I only use server side
scripts when I really need them. Static pages are much faster than scripts,
and give a sence of independance.
We seem to be in a morass of other issues that, interesting though
they may be, have no direct bearing on the topic and (given the desire
for a solution) can be easily solved. Unfortunately, we know that
many of the folks commissioning web pages don't want them to be
solved, because they've got a much better idea what their users need
than any of those users could have, let alone a web usability
specialist. In short, they have no wish for their web pages to be
usable. The pages serve quite a different purpose (possibly they're
for intimidating their competitors?).
When browsing a non-frames site I tend to "Open-in-new-window" more than
with frames.
If I haven't blocked frames entirely, when I stumble on a framed site
I tend to "open frame in separate window" much more than with properly
made web sites. I find that an unwanted additional chore, but a
necessary workaround for getting things done. Can you deduce that I'd
prefer for the problem not to be put there in the first place?
Going back can take just as long to load as it loaded the
first time just because the script decided it should show a different ad
banner.
So now we're getting down to _real_ problems.
For me a bad example is http://www.brothersoft.com/
http://www.ircache.net/cgi-bin/cache...%2F&descend=on

Is there something I'm missing here? There's too much clutter on the
page, and its cacheability does leave something to be desired; but
it's by no means as bad as many I've seen.
sometimes (depending on how bussy it is) this page can take ages to load.
On the other hand, to put all that (navigation+ads) in a navigation frame
wouldn't leave any space for the content on some screens :-)
I've lost the thread. You've produced a string of problems for which
there are known solutions, but you seem to be using them to support a
relatively unrelated non-solution which brings additional problems.
Use frames but leave an alternative. Make sure your pages have links to the
rest of your site with their own navigation bar, for mobile devices,
screenreaders, and for those who dont come thrugh the door (99% if well
raited in search engines) and for Google's sake (google gives pages with
links a higher priority).
What's new about that, then? That general idea has always been
accepted good-practice in polite company when dealing with frames.
But better practice is not to use the damned things at all (except
maybe in some special situations).
Use some Javascript for the navigation frame page so that if it loads as
the top page, it redirects to the main page (google will obviously link to
your navigation frame because of all the links).


Since one of the reasons I disable JS is to prevent authors forcing me
into a frameset that I didn't ask for, this is just an additional
hassle, rather than any kind of solution.
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:39:50 +0000, Jim Dabell declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Use some Javascript for the navigation frame page so that if it loads as
the top page, it redirects to the main page (google will obviously link to
your navigation frame because of all the links).


I hate this behaviour. I often use the "Show only this frame" feature in
Firebird to escape frames; the last thing I want is to be put back where I
started (or, in many cases, lose my place altogether in the website and be
left at the main page).


Ditto (though I use Mozilla, not Firebird). So I often end up disabling
Javascript, *then* telling it to only show that frame. Painful,
sometimes (especially when I forget to enable it again, and then other
sites don't work - grrr!).

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in
news:r4****************************@40tude.net:

Use some Javascript for the navigation frame page so that if it
loads as the top page, it redirects to the main page (google will
obviously link to your navigation frame because of all the links).
<snip> Ditto (though I use Mozilla, not Firebird). So I often end up
disabling Javascript, *then* telling it to only show that frame.
Painful, sometimes (especially when I forget to enable it again, and
then other sites don't work - grrr!).


Why would you want to bookmark or print a navigation frame? Any other
reason for wanting to view it alone? (All the links will open in another
window named after the content-frame if you're using the navigation
window).

I don't do this with pages containing content wich should be accessable to
any browser.

--
Add articles with optional images to news/events pages via FTP
News Updater: http://www.xmlssoftware.com/NUpdater
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net.. .
Come on, this isn't rocket surgery. Let's use our heads, shall

we?

Stan, not to be rude or anything. but sometimes I think you
assume the average joe knows a quarter of what you know!

I know so much more about my computer, HTML, CSS and the internet
as a whole than any of my friends, but I don't know a quarter of
what you know.

I can appreciate impatience, but please remember that you and
most of the regulars here have knowledge of "basic web
operations" which far exceeds the average user, and still dwarfs
the so-called "power user." (I hate that term, but it's the best
one to describe what I'm saying.)

Just a friendly reminder...
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net.. .
Come on, this isn't rocket surgery. Let's use our heads, shall


we?

Stan, not to be rude or anything. but sometimes I think you
assume the average joe knows a quarter of what you know!

I know so much more about my computer, HTML, CSS and the internet
as a whole than any of my friends, but I don't know a quarter of
what you know.

I can appreciate impatience, but please remember that you and
most of the regulars here have knowledge of "basic web
operations" which far exceeds the average user, and still dwarfs
the so-called "power user." (I hate that term, but it's the best
one to describe what I'm saying.)

Just a friendly reminder...

Hey Neal,

Thanks a lot for that. I admitted ignorance but I am not the freakin'
retard that Stan seems to claim that I am. It must be hard knowing it
all and looking down on the rest of us.

Oh well, all shapes and sizes, I guess. I have explored the newsgroups
a lot (through a thnuderbird reader, not Google's interface) and hav
found a lot of spiteful, holier-than-thou types out there. What was it
that Rodney King said?

;)

Thanks again Neal (and others) for taking me at face value.

Scott
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Louis Somers wrote:
My views differ from the rest of the world, Think inside the box! :-)

I have a huge animation (ok I know everyone hates them) at the top of my
page. Also some navigation buttons with javascript to make them highlight
with mouseover events etc. I wouldn't want to add all that to each and
every page on my site (especially static pages). I only use server side
scripts when I really need them. Static pages are much faster than scripts,
and give a sence of independance.

When browsing a non-frames site I tend to "Open-in-new-window" more than
with frames. Going back can take just as long to load as it loaded the
first time just because the script decided it should show a different ad
banner.
I definitely like to have links opening in new windows for the same
reason. With Mozilla or Firebird I have everything opeining in new tabs
and that makes life much easier on my browsing. It is easier to close a
new tab or window than going back.
Use frames but leave an alternative. Make sure your pages have links to the
rest of your site with their own navigation bar, for mobile devices,
screenreaders, and for those who dont come thrugh the door (99% if well
raited in search engines) and for Google's sake (google gives pages with
links a higher priority).
I was pretty much against frames but still slightly undecided. The
printing issues probably give me the biggest headache, so I may just use
JavaScript and be creative with my nav bar.
Use some Javascript for the navigation frame page so that if it loads as
the top page, it redirects to the main page (google will obviously link to
your navigation frame because of all the links).

<ducking some rotten eggs and tomato's>


I had to duck a few times already, too! ;)

Scott
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Barry Pearson wrote:
I don't believe it is purely presentational.
What's "it" in the above sentence? The existing frames design _is_
purely presentational; any structure that you manage to deduce from it
is all your own work, there's nothing in the markup that gives it
away unambiguously.
There is some "communication" logic behind Frames,
There should have been. That was one of the major criticisms levelled
against them when they were originally slapped down on the table by
Netscape. Nothing fundamental about them has changed since, despite a
lot of twiddling with the cosmetics.
that deserves an attempt at a solution in future. But your statement
about need for the metainformation suggests that we probably agree
about the problem to be solved.
looking good...
Where we perhaps differ is the in the degree to which the author (on
behalf of the web site owner & designer) should specify the
visual-design proposals as part of the metainformation.


I need a lot of convincing before I'll give up the principle of
structural markup for content, optionally accompanied by separate
proposal(s) for presentation in various presentational situations.

There simply _is_ no one ideal presentation that fits them all. A
fortiori there is no future in authors specifying only a presentation,
and client agents having to guess just what structure the author might
have had in mind behind that presentation.

Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
It seems "Neal" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html in
article <3f**********************@news.rcn.com>:
Stan, not to be rude or anything. but sometimes I think you
assume the average joe knows a quarter of what you know!


This has to be about the best way there is to begin a rebuke! <grin>

This isn't the place for a long meta-discussion, so let me just say
that I appreciate what you said and the way in which you said it.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
It seems "Mark Parnell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
in article <r4****************************@40tude.net>:
Ditto (though I use Mozilla, not Firebird). So I often end up disabling
Javascript, *then* telling it to only show that frame. Painful,
sometimes (especially when I forget to enable it again, and then other
sites don't work - grrr!).


I like Preference Bar for this reason. F8 shows/hides the preference
bar. When I have Javascript in its non-default setting(*), I have
the bar visible so that I remember to switch it back after I'm done
with that site.

http://prefbar.mozdev.org/

(*) Backwards from you, I normally run with JS off and enable it
only for a very few sites like my bank. But the principle is the
same.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:08:14 -0500, Stan Brown declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
It seems "Mark Parnell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
in article <r4****************************@40tude.net>:
Ditto (though I use Mozilla, not Firebird). So I often end up disabling
Javascript, *then* telling it to only show that frame. Painful,
sometimes (especially when I forget to enable it again, and then other
sites don't work - grrr!).


I like Preference Bar for this reason. F8 shows/hides the preference
bar. When I have Javascript in its non-default setting(*), I have
the bar visible so that I remember to switch it back after I'm done
with that site.


I have the prefbar installed already - I just don't think to look at it!
I have way too many toolbars. :-)

And theoretically, it shouldn't matter - but a couple of the sites I use
regularly require Javascript. :-(

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
Neal wrote:

Stan, not to be rude or anything. but sometimes I think you
assume the average joe knows a quarter of what you know!

I can appreciate impatience, but please remember that you and
most of the regulars here have knowledge of "basic web
operations" which far exceeds the average user


http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

please note especially the section headlined, "On Not Reacting Like A
Loser" (..."Exaggeratedly 'friendly' (in that fashion) or useful:
Pick one.")

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

Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part>
wrote in message news:m0uLb.5606$I06.44135@attbi_s01...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

please note especially the section headlined, "On Not Reacting Like A Loser" (..."Exaggeratedly 'friendly' (in that fashion) or useful: Pick one.")


Ah, an obscure web page EVERYONE must have read, eh Brian? :)

It's good advice, I think both Stan and I are concerned for the
community. And you too. I, for one, value the input both of you
have in this forum.
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
Brian wrote
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


Ah, an obscure web page EVERYONE must have read, eh Brian? :)


I'm afraid I don't get the humor.

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

Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Neal wrote:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


Ah, an obscure web page EVERYONE must have read, eh Brian? :)


The bogosity detector is trembling at this point. Just in case it's
not a false positive, I'll make a comment.

The above FAQ has been widely quoted and referenced for a considerable
time. Anyone who has an interest in communicating on Usenet would be
well advised to familiarise themselves with it.
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
The above FAQ has been widely quoted and referenced for a considerable time. Anyone who has an interest in communicating on Usenet would be well advised to familiarise themselves with it.


It is useful, but I've been using Usenet for nearly 10 years, and
I've just seen this particular item now.
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
CJM

"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.rcn.com...

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
The above FAQ has been widely quoted and referenced for a

considerable
time. Anyone who has an interest in communicating on Usenet

would be
well advised to familiarise themselves with it.


It is useful, but I've been using Usenet for nearly 10 years, and
I've just seen this particular item now.


I'm sure I've seen this one before... but then again I've seen so many.
Every bloke and his dog will point you to their 'essential' FAQ. It just
depends
which BG you visit...

Most contain a whole lot of good advice, but there are plenty of
contradictions.

So I for one would prefer a more tolerant line... If a person makes a
mistake or
faux pas, an explanation is in order. Repeated offences deserve a rebuke or
more.

Chris

PS. I love the way the posted FAQ keeps referring to the 'Hackers' and the
'Hacker Community'.
Maybe I'm just not '133t' enough.
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, CJM wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote
[reference: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ]
The above FAQ has been widely quoted and referenced for a
considerable time. Anyone who has an interest in communicating
on Usenet would be well advised to familiarise themselves with
it.
I'm sure I've seen this one before... but then again I've seen so
many. Every bloke and his dog will point you to their 'essential'
FAQ. It just depends which BG you visit...

Most contain a whole lot of good advice, but there are plenty of
contradictions.
Welcome to Usenet. Remember Spafford's "herd of elephants"?[1]
So I for one would prefer a more tolerant line
Hmmm...
If a person makes a mistake or faux pas, an explanation is in order.
Repeated offences deserve a rebuke or more.
So. people who'd never been to the theatre before would stumble into
the auditorium in the middle of a scene, they'd shout out to ask won't
someone tell them what the hell is going on, and you'd just say oh
well they're new, we'll need to cut them some slack, have a quiet word
with them, and not get upset until they've done the same thing a few
times more?

Sorry: if they're going to the theatre, then they'd better find out
beforehand what kind of behaviour is expected there. And if they want
to participate in Usenet, the same kind of principle applies. At
least on Usenet it's possible to observe the existing users at work
without causing any kind of offence (it's called "lurking", and
newcomers _used_ to be advised to do it for a few weeks at least,
before putting their heads above the parapet with a posting).
PS. I love the way the posted FAQ keeps referring to the 'Hackers'
and the 'Hacker Community'. Maybe I'm just not '133t' enough.


I think you've missed the point that when old-timers refer to
"hackers" they're talking about dedicated programmers, not about what
are properly called "crackers". The two terms really shouldn't have
been confused like that.

Anyway: nothing to do with me personally, but I give you this recent
posting on comp.lang.perl.misc:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Xn...206.172.150.13

If I may quote the poster at some length:
___
/
Actually, someone posted

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

in alt.www.webmaster a week or two ago. It was a *really* good read.
While I don't think I'm guilty of all the faux-pas in there, there
were enough to make me realize that the fundamentals of using
comp.lang.perl.misc as a learning and growth tool are really simple,
but I wasn't always following: If you've got a question, do your
homework: If you still can't find the answer, THEN ask the NG, but
show what you've done to try and find your own answer so you're not
giving the impression that you consider the NG simply as a free
consulting tool.

I wish I had read that whole document *years* ago.
\___

Read the thread to find other useful discoveries from the same poster,
who takes the opportunity to apologise for earlier stubbornness, and
concedes that he'd have got much better results, faster, if he'd
allowed himself to pay attention to what he was being told earlier.

I'd count that as a success, wouldn't you?

all the best

[1] "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it." --gene spafford, 1992
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
CJM

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
Welcome to Usenet. Remember Spafford's "herd of elephants"?[1]

Never heard of this before, but a good one to remember.
If a person makes a mistake or faux pas, an explanation is in order.
Repeated offences deserve a rebuke or more.


[snip theatre bits]

I think there is a sliding scale; Much of it is common sense and a lot is
just plain courtesy. However, some of the 'rules' are less obvious. And
people need time to appreciate and digest them.

I think however some people on some NG's see things as black and white.
You either follow their rules or you dont - 'you are either for us or
against
us' - and respond rather more harshly.

Said people also seem to invest rather a lot of time, energy and bandwidth
slating those they feel are in breach. The result being new visitors never
coming back... which is bad for the NG as a whole.
PS. I love the way the posted FAQ keeps referring to the 'Hackers'
and the 'Hacker Community'. Maybe I'm just not '133t' enough.
I think you've missed the point that when old-timers refer to
"hackers" they're talking about dedicated programmers, not about what
are properly called "crackers". The two terms really shouldn't have
been confused like that.


I think it is clear that they were using the term in its older sense, but
what definition would they get if they looked in a modern dictionary?
And the original use is interesting... 'hackers' were an elitist group
and didnt tolerate newbies very much. Have lessons been learned?

It was updated in 2003 - surely the arcane language could be changed?
An otherwise useful article loses some credibility...
Anyway: nothing to do with me personally, but I give you this recent
posting on comp.lang.perl.misc:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Xn...206.172.150.13
I must admit sometimes I have fallen into similar traps. And I've learned
along the way. But I'm not disagreeing with much of the perceived
'best practice'. It's the way it is used and applied by some.
Read the thread to find other useful discoveries from the same poster,
who takes the opportunity to apologise for earlier stubbornness, and
concedes that he'd have got much better results, faster, if he'd
allowed himself to pay attention to what he was being told earlier.


No real argument here.
Compared to most other technical NGs I visit, this one has one of the
shallowest gene pools. It's very much an 'Enter at you own risk' kind of
place - and it shouldnt be. There are a number of very accomplished
people here, but too many have an axe to grind.

Anyway, this is just wasting more bandwidth. I don't think anyone
is going to be swayed by any of the arguments in this thread. The
'cliche' will continue as they always do, and the rest of us will continue
to tip-toe around them, ducking our heads - hoping that today they
will choose to help us with our question, without complaining
about our line length, our ignorance to the 'obvious', and without
posting the oft-used - 'I'm glad you said that; now I have a good
excuse to ignore you!' response.

Now, I'm even sick of the sound of my own voice [typing], so I
better end here.

Cheers

Chris

Jul 20 '05 #35

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.