Frames and tables - why not?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim S, Feb 27, 2007.

  1. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    As a novice at website construction I see here that the 'powers that be'
    frown on the use of frames and many here abhor the use if tables as
    placeholders.
    I have been given advice and consulted books and sites on the subject, but
    what ever I try, frames and tables always ends up being what seems a more
    efficient way of achieving an acceptable result.
    I understand I must take care about different resolutions and that is a
    problem where I must compromise, but then I will always have to compromise
    on the size of graphics whatever I do.
    Is this just nitpicking like the greengrocer's apostrophe or is there more
    to it?
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Feb 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Feb 27, 8:33 am, Jim S <> wrote:
    > As a novice at website construction I see here that the 'powers that be'
    > frown on the use of frames and many here abhor the use if tables as
    > placeholders.
    > I have been given advice and consulted books and sites on the subject, but
    > what ever I try, frames and tables always ends up being what seems a more
    > efficient way of achieving an acceptable result.


    in many cases, the use of frames and tables IS more efficient for
    YOU. the problem comes when you think about the site from the
    visitor's point of view. Then those frames and tables may get in the
    way. (key word is "may")

    As a novice, listen to the powers that be. For the most part they are
    right about the use of frames and tables. Later, when you are one of
    the powers, then you will know the times when the rules can be bent.
     
    Travis Newbury, Feb 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On 27 Feb 2007 08:18:17 -0800, Travis Newbury wrote:

    > On Feb 27, 8:33 am, Jim S <> wrote:
    >> As a novice at website construction I see here that the 'powers that be'
    >> frown on the use of frames and many here abhor the use if tables as
    >> placeholders.
    >> I have been given advice and consulted books and sites on the subject, but
    >> what ever I try, frames and tables always ends up being what seems a more
    >> efficient way of achieving an acceptable result.

    >
    > in many cases, the use of frames and tables IS more efficient for
    > YOU. the problem comes when you think about the site from the
    > visitor's point of view. Then those frames and tables may get in the
    > way. (key word is "may")
    >
    > As a novice, listen to the powers that be. For the most part they are
    > right about the use of frames and tables. Later, when you are one of
    > the powers, then you will know the times when the rules can be bent.


    Hi Travis
    I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.
    About the topic in hand I am sure you are correct, but I came to my current
    website design, via the bellringers' sub-site, after trial and error, and,
    although it's not perfect I do like the way it works.
    I have listened and watched here and Googled and searched at length, but I
    can find no way to replicate the site (well no way that I can cope with)
    that produces a result that suits me.
    Of course I can use photo gallery software or even Frontpage, but I feel the
    need to understand what I am doing and would rather have a validatable site
    than not.
    Sigh.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Feb 27, 2007
    #3
  4. Jim S wrote:

    > I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.


    What site?


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 27, 2007
    #4
  5. On Feb 27, 1:14 pm, Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
    > Blinky RLU 297263
    > Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project:http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html


    BLINKY IS A DINK
    (just seeing if he is REALLY blocking all posts from google groups....)
     
    Travis Newbury, Feb 27, 2007
    #5
  6. >
    > Hi Travis
    > I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.
    > About the topic in hand I am sure you are correct, but I came to my current
    > website design, via the bellringers' sub-site, after trial and error, and,
    > although it's not perfect I do like the way it works.
    > I have listened and watched here and Googled and searched at length, but I
    > can find no way to replicate the site (well no way that I can cope with)
    > that produces a result that suits me.


    do you have an URL of your site? That may help to help you :)

    cheers
    bernhard


    --
    www.daszeichen.ch
    remove nixspam to reply
     
    Bernhard Sturm, Feb 27, 2007
    #6
  7. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On 27 Feb 2007 18:14:38 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Jim S wrote:
    >
    >> I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.

    >
    > What site?


    Pedant :eek:)
    Newsgroup.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Feb 27, 2007
    #7
  8. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:44:49 +0100, Bernhard Sturm wrote:

    >>
    >> Hi Travis
    >> I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.
    >> About the topic in hand I am sure you are correct, but I came to my current
    >> website design, via the bellringers' sub-site, after trial and error, and,
    >> although it's not perfect I do like the way it works.
    >> I have listened and watched here and Googled and searched at length, but I
    >> can find no way to replicate the site (well no way that I can cope with)
    >> that produces a result that suits me.

    >
    > do you have an URL of your site? That may help to help you :)
    >
    > cheers
    > bernhard


    Below as always. :eek:)
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Feb 27, 2007
    #8

  9. >>
    >> cheers
    >> bernhard

    >
    > Below as always. :eek:)


    oh sorry... didn't know that this was the URL in question. Looking at
    your site (http://www.jimscott.co.uk/), I would indeed use tables in
    order to organise your images. This looks like 'tabular data' to me,
    hence I wouldn't have any trouble using a mixed layout-technique
    (table/div) for your entry page.
    but I would drop the frames on your subpages. A frameless layout has the
    priceless advantage of being more accessible (printing, bookmarking is
    easier and search engines love frameless layouts). A frameless layout
    combined with server-side-includes makes the maintenance of a website
    easier, too.

    But you don't need to "die in beauty" (direct translation of a German
    proverb), so I wouldn't bother to change a thing. The site works for
    you, and you are obviously not aiming at winning the
    accessibility-award, so go for it, and you're better off by investing
    your time in taking more pictures, because content matters :)

    --
    www.daszeichen.ch
    remove nixspam to reply
     
    Bernhard Sturm, Feb 27, 2007
    #9
  10. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:35:56 +0100, Bernhard Sturm wrote:

    >>>
    >>> cheers
    >>> bernhard

    >>
    >> Below as always. :eek:)

    >
    > oh sorry... didn't know that this was the URL in question. Looking at
    > your site (http://www.jimscott.co.uk/), I would indeed use tables in
    > order to organise your images. This looks like 'tabular data' to me,
    > hence I wouldn't have any trouble using a mixed layout-technique
    > (table/div) for your entry page.
    > but I would drop the frames on your subpages. A frameless layout has the
    > priceless advantage of being more accessible (printing, bookmarking is
    > easier and search engines love frameless layouts). A frameless layout
    > combined with server-side-includes makes the maintenance of a website
    > easier, too.
    >
    > But you don't need to "die in beauty" (direct translation of a German
    > proverb), so I wouldn't bother to change a thing. The site works for
    > you, and you are obviously not aiming at winning the
    > accessibility-award, so go for it, and you're better off by investing
    > your time in taking more pictures, because content matters :)


    Thank you for that.
    I get the feeling of being a 'dog in a church' in this newsgroup sometimes.
    Now all I have to do is look up "server-side-includes" in my old-boys book
    of magic.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Feb 27, 2007
    #10
  11. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    > Jim S wrote:
    >
    > > I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.

    >
    > What site?


    I knew it! Soon as Jim said this, Blinky would come in like Jesus
    into the temple, mad as hell...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 27, 2007
    #11
  12. dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
    >
    >> Jim S wrote:
    >>
    >> > I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.

    >>
    >> What site?

    >
    > I knew it! Soon as Jim said this, Blinky would come in like Jesus
    > into the temple, mad as hell...


    "What site?" doesn't look angry to me.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 27, 2007
    #12
  13. Jim S wrote:
    > On 27 Feb 2007 18:14:38 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    >> Jim S wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.

    >>
    >> What site?

    >
    > Pedant :eek:)
    > Newsgroup.


    Pedant? Is a Ferrari a lawn mower? Is a tree a camel?


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 27, 2007
    #13
  14. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Jim S wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > I'm sure we have communicated on this site before.
    > >>
    > >> What site?

    > >
    > > I knew it! Soon as Jim said this, Blinky would come in like Jesus
    > > into the temple, mad as hell...

    >
    > "What site?" doesn't look angry to me.


    And as soon as I hit the post button, I was thinking... o yeah,
    now this will be misinterpreted to be saying that dorayme thinks
    Blinky is actually angry, I wonder if at least Blinky will see it
    as an exaggerated comic image?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 27, 2007
    #14

  15. >
    > Thank you for that.
    > I get the feeling of being a 'dog in a church' in this newsgroup sometimes.
    > Now all I have to do is look up "server-side-includes" in my old-boys book
    > of magic.


    never mind. I must say that we need indeed more 'dogs in churches' these
    days. It's already too quiet enough... :)

    cheers and good luck with the SSI-technique (you might check out this
    url for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Includes).
    bernhard


    --
    www.daszeichen.ch
    remove nixspam to reply
     
    Bernhard Sturm, Feb 28, 2007
    #15
  16. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:25:28 +0100, Bernhard Sturm wrote:

    >>
    >> Thank you for that.
    >> I get the feeling of being a 'dog in a church' in this newsgroup sometimes.
    >> Now all I have to do is look up "server-side-includes" in my old-boys book
    >> of magic.

    >
    > never mind. I must say that we need indeed more 'dogs in churches' these
    > days. It's already too quiet enough... :)
    >
    > cheers and good luck with the SSI-technique (you might check out this
    > url for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Includes).
    > bernhard


    Nothing there, but I had a look around and understand the concept.
    It all looks a bit scarey.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Feb 28, 2007
    #16
  17. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:25:28 +0100, Bernhard Sturm wrote:

    >>
    >> Thank you for that.
    >> I get the feeling of being a 'dog in a church' in this newsgroup sometimes.
    >> Now all I have to do is look up "server-side-includes" in my old-boys book
    >> of magic.

    >
    > never mind. I must say that we need indeed more 'dogs in churches' these
    > days. It's already too quiet enough... :)
    >
    > cheers and good luck with the SSI-technique (you might check out this
    > url for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Includes).
    > bernhard


    AND I don't think my server supports them.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Feb 28, 2007
    #17
  18. Jim S wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:25:28 +0100, Bernhard Sturm wrote:
    >
    >>> Thank you for that.
    >>> I get the feeling of being a 'dog in a church' in this newsgroup sometimes.
    >>> Now all I have to do is look up "server-side-includes" in my old-boys book
    >>> of magic.

    >> never mind. I must say that we need indeed more 'dogs in churches' these
    >> days. It's already too quiet enough... :)
    >>
    >> cheers and good luck with the SSI-technique (you might check out this
    >> url for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Includes).
    >> bernhard

    >
    > AND I don't think my server supports them.


    May not, it's IIS 5.0, but it might support ASP!
    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 28, 2007
    #18
  19. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:57:53 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Jim S wrote:
    >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:25:28 +0100, Bernhard Sturm wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Thank you for that.
    >>>> I get the feeling of being a 'dog in a church' in this newsgroup sometimes.
    >>>> Now all I have to do is look up "server-side-includes" in my old-boys book
    >>>> of magic.
    >>> never mind. I must say that we need indeed more 'dogs in churches' these
    >>> days. It's already too quiet enough... :)
    >>>
    >>> cheers and good luck with the SSI-technique (you might check out this
    >>> url for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Includes).
    >>> bernhard

    >>
    >> AND I don't think my server supports them.

    >
    > May not, it's IIS 5.0, but it might support ASP!


    Oh Lord you want me to ask what ASP is.
    OK what is ASP?
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Mar 1, 2007
    #19
  20. Jonathan N. Little, Mar 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Philip
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    999
    Karl Groves
    Jun 28, 2004
  2. Ale

    Frames or not Frames...

    Ale, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    988
    Adrienne
    Aug 5, 2005
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,027
    dorayme
    Feb 10, 2006
  4. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    935
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  5. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,131
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page