Frames and tables - why not?

[Jim S]

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?

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[Jim S]

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.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

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

What site?

 

[Travis Newbury]

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....)

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

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

 

[Jim S]

What site?

Pedant )
Newsgroup.

 

[Jim S]

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

cheers
bernhard

Below as always. )

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Below as always. )

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

 

[Jim S]

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.

 

[dorayme]

What site?

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

 

[Blinky the Shark]

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 the Shark]

Pedant )
Newsgroup.

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

 

[dorayme]

"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?

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

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

 

[Jim S]

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]

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.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

AND I don't think my server supports them.

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

 

[Jim S]

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?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Oh Lord you want me to ask what ASP is.
OK what is ASP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Server_Pages
Active Server Pages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sort of MS's PHP... you can do includes so your can build your page up
from common parts without frames...