frames are dead

Discussion in 'HTML' started by groovyd, Dec 28, 2007.

  1. groovyd

    groovyd Guest

    everyone keeps telling me that frames are dead and so i feel the need
    to finally rewrite my 'dead' site (www.groovydomain.com) so that it
    doesn't use them by somehow crafting some slick CSS that the same
    everyones are telling me is the new 'fashionable' way.

    the problem is everytime i try i get something that almost works on IE
    but not firefox or vice-versa. it seems that browsers have not yet
    standardized on alot of the CSS stuff. and even in the best cases i
    just cannot seem to get the same behavior as the site has using the
    frames. I have spent days trying all sorts of hackery to no success
    and in any case it all looks hopelessly more complex and convoluted
    then the code does using frames. The goal is not to change the look
    or behavior of the site at all other then just replacing the <frames>
    definitions with some CSS and the minimal # of DIVs. (ie. when
    scrolling the main frame i dont want to scroll the menu or the logo.
    also the words should wrap when someone resizes their window so you
    can still read the story without having to scroll left and right.)

    Words of wisdom anyone?
    groovyd, Dec 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. groovyd

    Vince Morgan Guest

    "groovyd" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > everyone keeps telling me that frames are dead and so i feel the need
    > to finally rewrite my 'dead' site (www.groovydomain.com) so that it
    > doesn't use them by somehow crafting some slick CSS that the same
    > everyones are telling me is the new 'fashionable' way.
    >
    > the problem is everytime i try i get something that almost works on IE
    > but not firefox or vice-versa. it seems that browsers have not yet
    > standardized on alot of the CSS stuff. and even in the best cases i
    > just cannot seem to get the same behavior as the site has using the
    > frames. I have spent days trying all sorts of hackery to no success
    > and in any case it all looks hopelessly more complex and convoluted
    > then the code does using frames. The goal is not to change the look
    > or behavior of the site at all other then just replacing the <frames>
    > definitions with some CSS and the minimal # of DIVs. (ie. when
    > scrolling the main frame i dont want to scroll the menu or the logo.
    > also the words should wrap when someone resizes their window so you
    > can still read the story without having to scroll left and right.)
    >
    > Words of wisdom anyone?

    I am currently redesigning a site that has been using frames similar to your
    own. http://www.labtek.com.au
    The new site is in the process of contruction and as such not all links etc
    are complete, however it is meant to emulate frames to some extent and could
    be of interest to you. http://www.labtek.com.au/newsite/main.php
    If you pull up the source you will notice there are some conditional links
    below the </style> tag to handle a couple of IE nonconformances. This
    appears to be a reasonable way to handle them, and your code will still
    validate. By the way, the validation links below don't work currently as I
    have changed the path since they were added. Well, not the css one anyway.
    Please don't tell me some things aren't working, I already know : )
    HTH
    Vince
    Vince Morgan, Dec 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. groovyd

    rf Guest

    "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:4774bce1$0$26468$...

    > http://www.labtek.com.au/newsite/main.php


    Unusable at canvas width less than about 800 pixels (read mobile phones
    etc). No horizontal scroll bar.

    Does quite bizarre things when I increase my font size.

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 28, 2007
    #3
  4. groovyd

    rf Guest

    "groovyd" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > everyone keeps telling me that frames are dead and so i feel the need
    > to finally rewrite my 'dead' site (www.groovydomain.com) so that it
    > doesn't use them by somehow crafting some slick CSS that the same
    > everyones are telling me is the new 'fashionable' way.


    > Words of wisdom anyone?


    Don't try to "emulate" the existing frame site, you will create more
    usability and accessibility problems than you need. Specifically, do not be
    tempted to use overflow: scroll on anything. Redesign the site from scratch.

    Code to the standard, testing in a modern browser like Firefox. Check
    occasionally with IE to make sure that crippled browser still displays
    correctly.

    Where is your best effort so far?

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 28, 2007
    #4
  5. groovyd

    Vince Morgan Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:eM3dj.28532$...
    >
    > "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:4774bce1$0$26468$...
    >
    > > http://www.labtek.com.au/newsite/main.php

    >
    > Unusable at canvas width less than about 800 pixels (read mobile phones
    > etc). No horizontal scroll bar.
    >
    > Does quite bizarre things when I increase my font size.
    >
    > --
    > Richard.
    >
    >

    The content of that main page has been planted there from the original sight
    and is not going to be in the finished page. That is where the resizing
    prolbem should show up.
    When discussing (considerabley) the site, the management wanted this layout,
    and when the issue of mobiles, etc was raized they made the case that it's
    not their market at all, and they couldn't care less what it looks like on
    portable devices, other than laptops.
    Ultimately, it's their site, their business, and they thought the notion
    that it should work on mobiles PDA's etc as humerous.
    Regards,
    Vince
    Vince Morgan, Dec 28, 2007
    #5
  6. groovyd

    rf Guest

    "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:4774cb8c$0$26468$...

    > Ultimately, it's their site, their business, and they thought the notion
    > that it should work on mobiles PDA's etc as humerous.


    I guess you have to humour them if they want to throw away a certain
    percentage of their potential business :)

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 28, 2007
    #6
  7. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed groovyd <>
    writing in news:3f052019-c1b4-4e2e-8861-c85dc2a54a96
    @c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

    > everyone keeps telling me that frames are dead and so i feel the need
    > to finally rewrite my 'dead' site (www.groovydomain.com) so that it
    > doesn't use them by somehow crafting some slick CSS that the same
    > everyones are telling me is the new 'fashionable' way.
    >
    > Words of wisdom anyone?


    As others have said, don't try to recreate the frames. Use server side
    includes and stick to standards.

    OT - when I went to look at your site, my 4 year old was sitting on my
    lap, and insisted that we look at most of your videos. His comment was
    "that's all the sound?" - but he did enjoy watching them (we watched the
    first 6 movies).


    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, Dec 28, 2007
    #7
  8. groovyd

    dorayme Guest

    In article <XS3dj.28533$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > "groovyd" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > everyone keeps telling me that frames are dead and so i feel the need
    > > to finally rewrite my 'dead' site (www.groovydomain.com) so that it
    > > doesn't use them by somehow crafting some slick CSS that the same
    > > everyones are telling me is the new 'fashionable' way.

    >
    > > Words of wisdom anyone?

    >
    > Don't try to "emulate" the existing frame site, you will create more
    > usability and accessibility problems than you need. Specifically, do not be
    > tempted to use overflow: scroll on anything. Redesign the site from scratch.
    >


    Yes, grab the opportunity to do something different.

    But it is not all that hard to emulate frames and avoid creating
    more usability and accessibility problems than you need. OP's
    site is simple enough. Float the menu left. Repeat it and the
    header on each page and like that. There are not that many pages.
    He can use includes or not, it does not matter here.


    -----------------
    (btw, what caught my eye in your remarks, rf, was you saying,
    above,

    "do not be tempted to use overflow: scroll on anything"

    because, your words in another thread were still ringing in my
    ears:

    "I usually however use overflow: scroll"

    I looked into these remarks of yours yesterday in another
    connection and I think I learnt something. I was tinkering with
    and advancing my little story telling project at
    http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/ Sure, it was in another
    context and I am not saying you are contradicting yourself, keep
    your shirt on. What you and especially Ben said about overflow
    was most interesting to me.)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 28, 2007
    #8
  9. groovyd

    rf Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > (btw, what caught my eye in your remarks, rf, was you saying,
    > above,
    >
    > "do not be tempted to use overflow: scroll on anything"
    >
    > because, your words in another thread were still ringing in my
    > ears:
    >
    > "I usually however use overflow: scroll"
    >
    > I looked into these remarks of yours yesterday in another
    > connection and I think I learnt something. I was tinkering with
    > and advancing my little story telling project at
    > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/ Sure, it was in another
    > context and I am not saying you are contradicting yourself, keep
    > your shirt on. What you and especially Ben said about overflow
    > was most interesting to me.)


    No contradiction.

    Case 1. Use overflow:scroll to simulate the behaviour of a frame (or an
    iframe) where one *knows* the height (and possibly width) of the container
    is specified, usually to the dimensions of the viewport, just like frames
    are and one knows there *will* be scroll bars.

    Case 2. Use overflow scroll to entrap floated decendants, where one does
    *not* specify the height or width of the container, thus allowing it to grow
    to the size of its content and where one fervently hopes there *will not* be
    any scroll bars, except in extreme circumstances.

    We would not be using case 2 if there were other more direct ways of
    obtaining the result.

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 28, 2007
    #9
  10. groovyd

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-28, dorayme <> wrote:
    [...]
    > I looked into these remarks of yours yesterday in another
    > connection and I think I learnt something. I was tinkering with
    > and advancing my little story telling project at
    > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/


    One small inaccuracy or ambiguity there: you say 'there is a way to
    force inline (and other) materials to clear the bottom of floats: via
    the css instruction called "clear"'.

    Since CSS 2.1, you can only actually set clear on block-level things
    (although I think in CSS 2 you could set it on inlines). Maybe by "via"
    you meant the inlines go in another block-level element on which you've
    set clear, which is what the examples show, but perhaps it's not, er,
    clear.

    An exception is made for <br> which is display: inline and on which the
    clear property does work in browsers. Although technically a violation
    of CSS 2.1, it would be a bit strange to allow the HTML clear attribute
    but not the CSS clear property so I think that's why they do it.
    Ben C, Dec 28, 2007
    #10
  11. groovyd

    dorayme Guest

    In article <eGedj.28667$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > (btw, what caught my eye in your remarks, rf, was you saying,
    > > above,
    > >
    > > "do not be tempted to use overflow: scroll on anything"
    > >
    > > because, your words in another thread were still ringing in my
    > > ears:
    > >
    > > "I usually however use overflow: scroll"
    > >

    ....
    >
    > No contradiction.
    >


    True. Words that ring in ears out of context can be mere triggers
    for reminders. <g>

    > Case 2. Use overflow scroll to entrap floated decendants, where one does
    > *not* specify the height or width of the container, thus allowing it to grow
    > to the size of its content and where one fervently hopes there *will not* be
    > any scroll bars, except in extreme circumstances.
    >
    > We would not be using case 2 if there were other more direct ways of
    > obtaining the result.


    There is overflow: auto and hidden and at some stage I would not
    mind you expanding on why you prefer "scroll" over "auto". But I
    guess this thread is not the right one.

    At http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page8.html I end with your
    suggestion but it looks not to be as good as "auto". But my mind
    is quite open on all of this. It's quite interesting. Depending
    on what I learn or think in coming weeks, I might make an
    appendix to page 8 to go into it a bit.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 28, 2007
    #11
  12. groovyd

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2007-12-28, dorayme <> wrote:
    > [...]
    > > I looked into these remarks of yours yesterday in another
    > > connection and I think I learnt something. I was tinkering with
    > > and advancing my little story telling project at
    > > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/

    >
    > One small inaccuracy or ambiguity there: you say 'there is a way to
    > force inline (and other) materials to clear the bottom of floats: via
    > the css instruction called "clear"'.
    >
    > Since CSS 2.1, you can only actually set clear on block-level things
    > (although I think in CSS 2 you could set it on inlines). Maybe by "via"
    > you meant the inlines go in another block-level element on which you've
    > set clear, which is what the examples show, but perhaps it's not, er,
    > clear.
    >
    > An exception is made for <br> which is display: inline and on which the
    > clear property does work in browsers. Although technically a violation
    > of CSS 2.1, it would be a bit strange to allow the HTML clear attribute
    > but not the CSS clear property so I think that's why they do it.


    Thanks. I was meaning the css clear on other block level
    elements. But perhaps I better make this clearer when I next take
    a look.

    (Till not that long ago I was consulting my offline CSS 2 for
    info till you pointed out in some thread that it is better to be
    consulting the CSS 2.1. I have now forgotten all about 2!)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 28, 2007
    #12
  13. groovyd

    rf Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <eGedj.28667$>,
    > "rf" <> wrote:


    >> Case 2. Use overflow scroll to entrap floated decendants, where one does
    >> *not* specify the height or width of the container, thus allowing it to
    >> grow
    >> to the size of its content and where one fervently hopes there *will not*
    >> be
    >> any scroll bars, except in extreme circumstances.
    >>
    >> We would not be using case 2 if there were other more direct ways of
    >> obtaining the result.

    >
    > There is overflow: auto and hidden and at some stage I would not
    > mind you expanding on why you prefer "scroll" over "auto". But I
    > guess this thread is not the right one.


    Hmmm. I have absolutely no idea why I am talking about overflow: scroll. I
    also have absolutely no idea why in the "other thread" I mentioned overflow:
    scroll.

    In all cases I mean overflow: auto; and, yes, in all my code I do in fact
    use overflow: auto;. Overflow: scroll; *always* produces scroll bars which,
    in establishing a new block formatting context, is neither needed nor
    wanted. Overflow: auto; is the one we should be using. As stated above it
    would be better if there were some more formal method of establishing the
    new context, rather than a side effect of a totally unrelated property.

    Must have been a brain fart during all previous posts :)

    Now, to restate my original statement in this thread: Don't be tempted to
    use overflow: auto; or overflow: scroll; to emulate frames.

    Yep. That's better :)

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 29, 2007
    #13
  14. groovyd

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:02:26
    GMT rf scribed:

    >> There is overflow: auto and hidden and at some stage I would not
    >> mind you expanding on why you prefer "scroll" over "auto". But I
    >> guess this thread is not the right one.

    >
    > Hmmm. I have absolutely no idea why I am talking about overflow:
    > scroll. I also have absolutely no idea why in the "other thread" I
    > mentioned overflow: scroll.
    >
    > In all cases I mean overflow: auto; and, yes, in all my code I do in
    > fact use overflow: auto;. Overflow: scroll; *always* produces scroll
    > bars which, in establishing a new block formatting context, is neither
    > needed nor wanted. Overflow: auto; is the one we should be using. As
    > stated above it would be better if there were some more formal method
    > of establishing the new context, rather than a side effect of a
    > totally unrelated property.
    >
    > Must have been a brain fart during all previous posts :)


    ....Or old age. I would have guessed the latter.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Riches are their own reward.
    Neredbojias, Dec 29, 2007
    #14
  15. groovyd

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Ben C <> wrote:
    >
    > > > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/

    > >
    > > One small inaccuracy or ambiguity there: you say 'there is a way to
    > > force inline (and other) materials to clear the bottom of floats: via
    > > the css instruction called "clear"'.
    > >
    > > Since CSS 2.1, you can only actually set clear on block-level things
    > > (although I think in CSS 2 you could set it on inlines). Maybe by "via"
    > > you meant the inlines go in another block-level element on which you've
    > > set clear, which is what the examples show, but perhaps it's not, er,
    > > clear.
    > >
    > > An exception is made for <br> which is display: inline and on which the
    > > clear property does work in browsers. Although technically a violation
    > > of CSS 2.1, it would be a bit strange to allow the HTML clear attribute
    > > but not the CSS clear property so I think that's why they do it.

    >
    > Thanks. I was meaning the css clear on other block level
    > elements. But perhaps I better make this clearer when I next take
    > a look.


    I took a look this morning and added bits. Thanks for this. I
    also mentioned about the <br>. I did not go into why there was an
    exception but thanks for reminding me about the probable reason.

    [What a strange little thing a <br> is, a specialist inline
    soldier that gives a peculiar final order: to make the path ahead
    instantly disappear. What a responsibility! <g>]

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 30, 2007
    #15
  16. groovyd

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-30, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    ><>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Ben C <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/

    [...]
    >> Thanks. I was meaning the css clear on other block level
    >> elements. But perhaps I better make this clearer when I next take
    >> a look.

    >
    > I took a look this morning and added bits. Thanks for this. I
    > also mentioned about the <br>. I did not go into why there was an
    > exception but thanks for reminding me about the probable reason.


    One more thing, you say "block formatting element", which is in italics
    as if it were a technical term, but it's not one I've heard. The more
    common expression is "block-level element" which is defined in the spec
    as various things and is what you mean here (divs and paragraphs etc.)
    Ben C, Dec 30, 2007
    #16
  17. groovyd

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2007-12-30, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article
    > ><>,
    > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <>,
    > >> Ben C <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/

    > [...]
    > >> Thanks. I was meaning the css clear on other block level
    > >> elements. But perhaps I better make this clearer when I next take
    > >> a look.

    > >
    > > I took a look this morning and added bits. Thanks for this. I
    > > also mentioned about the <br>. I did not go into why there was an
    > > exception but thanks for reminding me about the probable reason.

    >
    > One more thing, you say "block formatting element", which is in italics
    > as if it were a technical term, but it's not one I've heard. The more
    > common expression is "block-level element" which is defined in the spec
    > as various things and is what you mean here (divs and paragraphs etc.)


    It should be "block-level element" and it is now. Thanks.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 30, 2007
    #17
    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. Powerslave2112

    From Frames to no frames?

    Powerslave2112, Jan 20, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    576
    brucie
    Jan 20, 2004
  2. Philip
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    954
    Karl Groves
    Jun 28, 2004
  3. Ale

    Frames or not Frames...

    Ale, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    949
    Adrienne
    Aug 5, 2005
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    989
    dorayme
    Feb 10, 2006
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,196
Loading...

Share This Page