frames and border

L

Leonard Blaisdell

dorayme said:
I have to stress that the total argument between frames and non
frames is one thing. For example, I would be unlikely to make a
commercial site with frames again.

It would be unfair to your client if you did so without telling them the
specifics of why frames don't work well and understanding them yourself.
But it is a different thing
to the fact of the easy advantages of some features of frames.

Easily duplicated by CSS which is easy to implement and learn. It's the
nonspecific browser garbage that confuses the issue. And there wouldn't
be an issue if IE conformed correctly.
(I like updating and looking at the one site with frames on my
books, it is nice to operate and think through using the nav
system on the left and worrying mainly only about the simpler
code of the right content).

Not sure what you mean here that I didn't state above.
In my mild dispute with the good Mark Parnell, I have been
unable to get this point across. It is hard to get folk who are
convinced of the evil of frames in general to admit the
slightest thing about them on the positive side of the ledger.

There isn't one. Frames are 'truly' evil. Seductive to the designer and
garbage to the user.
But in this, I am probably more
unreasonable than I should be!

Yup.

leo
 
D

dorayme

From: Leonard Blaisdell said:
It would be unfair to your client if you did so without telling them the
specifics of why frames don't work well and understanding them yourself.

As I said, I would be unlikely to make a framed site for a commercial
client. So what quite is the relevance of your remark? I will pass over this
idea of yours of discussing technical matters with clients...

Easily duplicated by CSS which is easy to implement and learn. It's the
nonspecific browser garbage that confuses the issue. And there wouldn't
be an issue if IE conformed correctly.

"Easily duplicated", "easy to implement" "and learn" "the nonspecific
browser garbage ... confuses the issue" "wouldn't be an issue if IE
conformed correctly"

You are spraying stuff all over the place. (Just btw, how come you left out
a phrase about the popularity of IE? Did not suit your fundamentalist
stance?). I took some trouble to make a distinction between the overall
balance of the ledger sheet - admittedly in favour of dropping frames
technology - on all this and you make exactly the mistake in scope that I
described.

Not sure what you mean here that I didn't state above.


There isn't one. Frames are 'truly' evil. Seductive to the designer and
garbage to the user.
Yes, well, there you go. You do what I do myself when I am more unreasonable
than I should be.
This last little snip of yours (to which you reply "Yup")
is rather unfair and manages to completely alter my meaning.
Nothing is beneath a fundamentalist to argue and do in the cause eh?

dorayme
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
But it is a different thing
to the fact of the easy advantages of some features of frames.
In my mild dispute with the good Mark Parnell, I have been
unable to get this point across. It is hard to get folk who are
convinced of the evil of frames in general to admit the
slightest thing about them on the positive side of the ledger.

IIRC the only positive you have put forward for frames is the menu
staying static while the content scrolls. As I said before, I personally
don't think that it *is* a positive. I don't use position: fixed for the
same reason.
 
L

Leonard Blaisdell

From: Leonard Blaisdell <[email protected]>
[/QUOTE]
As I said, I would be unlikely to make a framed site for a commercial
client. So what quite is the relevance of your remark? I will pass over this
idea of yours of discussing technical matters with clients...

"Unlikely to" is a qualifier and doesn't close the door. Say "Won't".

Again, from a designer standpoint. The client gets less than a benefit.
You are spraying stuff all over the place. (Just btw, how come you left out
a phrase about the popularity of IE? Did not suit your fundamentalist
stance?). I took some trouble to make a distinction between the overall
balance of the ledger sheet - admittedly in favour of dropping frames
technology - on all this and you make exactly the mistake in scope that I
described.

I make mistakes by the dozens all the time, but I don't stick to a
position because it was confusing to learn in the first place and hard
to give up once I did. Well, not in this case.
Yes, well, there you go. You do what I do myself when I am more unreasonable
than I should be.

I'm not being unreasonable. I truly tried to 'soft shoe' my objection to
frames for you. I had a fairly large commercial site made of them until
this group made me see the light.
This last little snip of yours (to which you reply "Yup")
is rather unfair and manages to completely alter my meaning.
Nothing is beneath a fundamentalist to argue and do in the cause eh?

I felt the heat at, what is it, 8000 miles away. I'm not unfair. But us
fundamentalists sometimes see the 'true' light. Reach for the light. Oh,
and smiley, smiley, smiley.
Don't be angry with me. I'm a Labrador Retriever living in Reykjavik and
struggling with the lava. My old master Olaf told me to spread the
message that frames must die.

leo
 
D

dorayme

From: Mark Parnell said:
IIRC the only positive you have put forward for frames is the menu
staying static while the content scrolls. As I said before, I personally
don't think that it *is* a positive. I don't use position: fixed for the
same reason.

You do not see it as useful to you personally. This is different
to it not being useful to other people. It simply isn't good
enough for you that frames are a bad idea generally. Every
single thing about them needs to be damned eh?

And you give a particularly unsatisfactory reason for refraining
from putting in a facility like fixedness (never mind frames for
this point). People besides yourself might very well find it
useful. Perhaps you know most people don't (I doubt it). But my
point here does not rest on this.

About the fixedness of the left nav being the only thing: I
thought I had mentioned it being easy for me to work on such a
site as I have to often update one significantly and don't have
to bother about the markup for the largely unchanging menu, that
it is easier text on the eye and my brain for the right hand
pages content... I know, not even this would be admitted by you
to be a pro because you have alternative techniques (superior
ones doubtless, ones that I might get one day). But then you
miss the fact that without knowing php one can do variously
modest useful things. No, I know. Even the time saved not
knowing things is not a positive. I should damn well make time
and save time in the future. Alright already, I will!

My view is that it is not as simple a matter as you make out.
Yes, non frames is certainly on balance the way to go in case
anyone is tempted (for most sites) and perhaps we should leave
it here.

dorayme
 
D

dorayme

As I said, I would be unlikely to make a framed site for a commercial
client. So what quite is the relevance of your remark? I will pass over this
idea of yours of discussing technical matters with clients...

"Unlikely to" is a qualifier and doesn't close the door. Say "Won't".
[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? What was the relevance of the remark referred to? And
your authority for telling me what I should say is...? Got any
idea about this? I gave you one of my best NZ jokes and this is
how you treat me?

(Suppose a commercial site wanted me to put in a short section
on the use of frames in the history of web design? And offered
me big money? Suppose they wanted frames for silly reasons and
offered me bigger money? Suppose I want to carry out a project
that needs frames to be wild and crazy. There are famous sites,
I think, I must dig them out again... What the hell should I
say? "O no, there is this Leo character who has made me take
some qualifier to some extreme. Sorry, can't do this!")

Again, from a designer standpoint. The client gets less than a benefit.

You don't know this at all given that you do not know the client
bases of all clients. I am getting tired... Who would have
thought you folk could sap the energy and life from a poor old
person like me...

I make mistakes by the dozens all the time, but I don't stick to a
position because it was confusing to learn in the first place and hard
to give up once I did. Well, not in this case.

You do not know that I cannot change my framed site with the
skills I have. Please restrain yourself, I have more NZ jokes if
that will encourage you. I have changed my personal formerly
framed home site to a non framed one at great trouble to myself.
And when it was done I flatly refused to pay.

It is a bit different with a commercial client who like their
site (quite rightly because it is incredibly beautiful). I
forgave myself for not paying myself, but I would not forgive a
company. Given an earlier remark of yours, you do not seem to
realise how little one can always discuss technical matters with
clients. In the case of my own home site, I found it very easy
to discuss every single aspect of the proposed change with
myself. In fact, at one point I was dragged off as a lunatic
talking to himself and only released when I explained about the
importance overall for a website to be unframed... "No! I am not
saying I think people are framing me officer." I said. Tricky
situation.
I'm not being unreasonable. I truly tried to 'soft shoe' my objection to
frames for you. I had a fairly large commercial site made of them until
this group made me see the light.

You miss the point. I know what the objection to frames are (not
as well as others but not too bad). I am not recommending frames
to anyone. I am just putting my arms and body around this
miserable wretched creature for one compassionate moment. It has
been set upon by all you thugs, it is badly bruised and bleeding
and for God's sake let someone, me, anyone, just to say a kind
few words about it... Please? I beg you?

I felt the heat at, what is it, 8000 miles away. I'm not unfair. But us
fundamentalists sometimes see the 'true' light. Reach for the light. Oh,
and smiley, smiley, smiley.
Don't be angry with me. I'm a Labrador Retriever living in Reykjavik and
struggling with the lava. My old master Olaf told me to spread the
message that frames must die.

I am not angry with you my dear Leo... now that you have
explained how you are a convert to the fundamentalist creed, I
understand. You have the zeal of a convert. It is not anything
you can control. Have some mulled wine, it must be cold there
(but have a good slug of cold whisky with it... the heating of
the wine removes the ingredient you need to calm and truly warm
your zealatous body)

dorayme
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
Sure, but it means putting code on every page and again sure,
there are includes and php and stuff one can go into. But I
understood from the talk around here that frames were more
reliable than fixed positions over browsers, young and old...

That's probably true, but of all things in css, position:fixed; is
surely one of the most unequivocal. Why IE's incomparable design agents
failed to implement it (even improperly), I know not.
I have to stress that the total argument between frames and non
frames is one thing. For example, I would be unlikely to make a
commercial site with frames again. But it is a different thing
to the fact of the easy advantages of some features of frames.
(I like updating and looking at the one site with frames on my
books, it is nice to operate and think through using the nav
system on the left and worrying mainly only about the simpler
code of the right content).

Yeah. When I was younger, I felt the same way about my night-night.
In my mild dispute with the good Mark Parnell, I have been
unable to get this point across. It is hard to get folk who are
convinced of the evil of frames in general to admit the
slightest thing about them on the positive side of the ledger.
To me, this is often a sign of a likely mistake in reasoning to
do with a confusion about the scope of the issue at hand. Let me
give you an example: I find I have nothing good to say about
some political or religious positions because they stink *on the
whole*. I am not inclined to see any strong or even mildly
reasonable points *for* the positions concerned. I am most
reluctant to concede the slightest thing, let alone encourage
them in the slightest. But in this, I am probably more
unreasonable than I should be!

I, er, understood your point until I read the explanation.
Nevertheless, I concur with the final conclusion.
 
D

dorayme

From: Neredbojias said:
I, er, understood your point until I read the explanation.
Nevertheless, I concur with the final conclusion.


I see... I say that folk can be unreasonable sometimes,
including myself and you suddenly did not understand the point
that even unsatisfactory technologies are not necessarily
unsatisfactory in every respect. You understood it before.
But... whoosh... it suddenly went all dark after some modest
admissions of human frailties on my part. I feel an urge to
study your brain... honest, I'll give it you back when I have
finished with it. (I will modify it only the very slightest bit,
there will be a new found urgency to go dance with Russell
Crowe... but that WILL be in your best interest)

dorayme
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
You do not see it as useful to you personally. This is different
to it not being useful to other people.

Absolutely. I never said anything to the contrary.
It simply isn't good
enough for you that frames are a bad idea generally. Every
single thing about them needs to be damned eh?

I have never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
And you give a particularly unsatisfactory reason for refraining
from putting in a facility like fixedness (never mind frames for
this point). People besides yourself might very well find it
useful. Perhaps you know most people don't (I doubt it). But my
point here does not rest on this.

If you disagree, that's fine. As I said, that's my personal view on it.
About the fixedness of the left nav being the only thing: I
thought I had mentioned it being easy for me to work on such a
site as I have to often update one significantly and don't have
to bother about the markup for the largely unchanging menu, that
it is easier text on the eye and my brain for the right hand
pages content

Ah, so you did. I missed that one, sorry.
... I know, not even this would be admitted by you
to be a pro

Sure, code reusability is always a good thing. But...
because you have alternative techniques

....there are plenty of other methods that allow for code reuse that
don't introduce the problems that frames do.
(superior
ones doubtless, ones that I might get one day). But then you
miss the fact that without knowing php one can do variously
modest useful things.

Using includes in PHP is very straightforward, though obviously it
requires a host that supports it (which are a dime a dozen these days).

<?php include("includes/menu.html"); ?>

And there are plenty of other alternatives too.
I should damn well make time
and save time in the future. Alright already, I will!

There's no need to get nasty about it, and again you are putting words
into my mouth. But consider this:

You have obviously already spent quite some time learning frames (let's
face it, they're not the easiest thing to learn). So you don't mind
learning new things. Why are you then so opposed to spending a little
more time learning better alternatives?
My view is that it is not as simple a matter as you make out.

TBH I think we agree, we're just coming at it from different
perspectives. I'm looking at it from a holistic view, whearas you are
looking at each feature of frames individually, more as general
features, rather than specifically related to frames. From that point of
view, yes some of the facets of frames are definitely good, like the
code reusability. Others are matters of opinion, such as the fixed
navigation (or whatever). Others are definite negatives, such as the
lack of unique URLs.
Yes, non frames is certainly on balance the way to go in case
anyone is tempted

On this we agree, and this is my point. You can talk all you like about
the good things about frames, and yes there are a few, but in the end
frames have too many problems to make them a reasonable solution. And
the positives can be achieved in other ways, which avoid the negatives.
(for most sites)

Certainly any that are going to be released to the www. In a controlled
environment such as an intranet, they can in some cases be useful.
and perhaps we should leave it here.

Perhaps. ;-)
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
I see... I say that folk can be unreasonable sometimes,
including myself and you suddenly did not understand the point
that even unsatisfactory technologies are not necessarily
unsatisfactory in every respect. You understood it before.
But... whoosh... it suddenly went all dark after some modest
admissions of human frailties on my part. I feel an urge to
study your brain... honest, I'll give it you back when I have
finished with it. (I will modify it only the very slightest bit,
there will be a new found urgency to go dance with Russell
Crowe... but that WILL be in your best interest)

Actually, I don't have a brain but a rete of ganglia maxima which is
vastly superior to the single organ many humans tout so blithely. It's
the next (logical) step in biological evolution and allows "us fortunate
few" to think holographically without thinking about it. Of course,
supremacy has its price; psychologists really earn their money when they
have to treat a multitasking schizophrenic.

As for your modest admissions of human frailties, it always startles me
when a woman admits to anything. Btw, I heard Russell Crowe was moving
to New Zealand because he found a place in Dunedin that will allow him
to recite poetry ad infinitum.
 
D

dorayme

From: Mark Parnell said:
Absolutely. I never said anything to the contrary.


I have never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I was not meaning to imply that you said these things and
apologies if they seem to be so starkly put. But what can I do
when your words imply them to me? If I bring the implications
out, they look bad (which is the intention but not to be
mean...) and you will likely not want to own them. For example
when I said:"Well. Some of them are so obvious. But I fear that
whatever particular advantage is pointed out, you will have a
particular alternative to that". You replied "Probably. But
that's because there generally *is* a better alternative".

Here we are either at cross purposes or not. I assumed you would
not be repeating something we both agreed with, that on balance,
it is wise to approach a job without frames. I was talking
within the scope of individual features that were well
supported. When I state a plus, your reply is that it is not a
plus all considered. But I have already agreed to that. So what
am I supposed quite to think? I assume that you do what other
people (including myself, it is a very human thing to do) who
are down on some practice, to damn and downplay and not exactly
goodmouth any of its parts.

And when I said "On this last point I am sure you have a good
case. But it is a different case to the case about individual
advantages". You replied "How can it be? If you use frames, you
get all the effects of them, not just an individual feature".

I am not complaining about the truth of your last sentence. I
had thought I made it clear I agreed. Your "How can it be" shows
we are at a continual cross purpose or else you are loathe to
admit the slightest good of any feature of frames.

I suspected a bit of both but if I am wrong about this, let us
put it down to the difficulty of clear communication in these
newsgroup messages...
If you disagree, that's fine. As I said, that's my personal view on it.


Ah, so you did. I missed that one, sorry.


Sure, code reusability is always a good thing. But...


...there are plenty of other methods that allow for code reuse that
don't introduce the problems that frames do.


Using includes in PHP is very straightforward, though obviously it
requires a host that supports it (which are a dime a dozen these days).

<?php include("includes/menu.html"); ?>

Yes, I am starting to use this a bit now and am planning to
convert a framed site using it. But I want to do it by thinking
beforehand and have an efficient plan so I don't make it an
overly costly effort when everything is working fine so far...
And there are plenty of other alternatives too.


There's no need to get nasty about it, and again you are putting words
into my mouth.

Here you misunderstand a friendly remark. Wonder why? Not Jewish
or spent any time in New York or seen any Woody Allen films? It
is anything but nasty. It is really saying something like: "Hey,
you are reminding me to do the right thing now and save trouble
in the future. Ok, I will!" It is the opposite. It is deferring.
It is not sarcastic because I do have every intention of
carrying it out. Getting this cobber?
But consider this:

You have obviously already spent quite some time learning frames (let's
face it, they're not the easiest thing to learn). So you don't mind
learning new things. Why are you then so opposed to spending a little
more time learning better alternatives?
Trust me, I am not at all opposed to it...
TBH I think we agree, we're just coming at it from different
perspectives. I'm looking at it from a holistic view, whearas you are
looking at each feature of frames individually, more as general
features, rather than specifically related to frames. From that point of
view, yes some of the facets of frames are definitely good, like the
code reusability. Others are matters of opinion, such as the fixed
navigation (or whatever). Others are definite negatives, such as the
lack of unique URLs.

Exactly and indeed...
On this we agree, and this is my point. You can talk all you like about
the good things about frames, and yes there are a few, but in the end
frames have too many problems to make them a reasonable solution. And
the positives can be achieved in other ways, which avoid the negatives.


Certainly any that are going to be released to the www. In a controlled
environment such as an intranet, they can in some cases be useful.

I agree, we agree, what should we talk about next?


dorayme
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
I am not complaining about the truth of your last sentence. I
had thought I made it clear I agreed. Your "How can it be" shows
we are at a continual cross purpose or else you are loathe to
admit the slightest good of any feature of frames.

It was the former - I didn't realise that you were talking about the
features in and of themselves - not specifically their role in frames.
Glad we got that sorted out. :)
Here you misunderstand a friendly remark.

Ah. Tone is sometimes hard to discern on Usenet. Perhaps a smiley would
have helped. ;-)
Not Jewish
No.

or spent any time in New York
No.

or seen any Woody Allen films?
No.

It is really saying something like: "Hey,
you are reminding me to do the right thing now and save trouble
in the future. Ok, I will!"
Understood.

I agree, we agree, what should we talk about next?

Anything but the cricket *mumble* English weather *mumble mumble*.
 
D

dorayme

From: Mark Parnell said:
Previously in alt.html, dorayme <[email protected]> said:


Ah. Tone is sometimes hard to discern on Usenet. Perhaps a smiley would
have helped. ;-)

Yes, I know about these, I do use them now and then but am not
keen... there is something about them... but you are probably
right...
Anything but the cricket *mumble* English weather *mumble
mumble*.

Pity... I like cricket... and am a bit cheesed off that the Poms
might draw this game and win the ashes with the help of the
lousy weather.... oops here am I doing what you forbid...

dorayme
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
Pity... I like cricket...

You wouldn't be Australian if you didn't. ;-)
and am a bit cheesed off that the Poms
might draw this game and win the ashes with the help of the
lousy weather....

Yeah, although we only drew the 3rd test because of the weather, so it's
one each I guess...
oops here am I doing what you forbid...

Whoops. Me too.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top