Frames as Rodney Dangerfield

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by MartinRinehart@gmail.com, Jul 5, 2008.

  1. Guest

    They just don't get no respect.

    "In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web
    applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly
    against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</
    i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting
    windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289)

    Why?
     
    , Jul 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > They just don't get no respect.


    You are not making sense.

    > "In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web
    > applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly
    > against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</
    > i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting
    > windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289)
    >
    > Why?


    Evidently, Flanagan rarely knows what he is talking about, if that. The
    choice of not using frames or iframes has nothing to do with scripting at
    all, as since the first day they were supported the `target' attribute of
    `a' elements was supported. It is a matter of accessibility and of CSS
    emerging about twelve years ago instead.


    PointedEars
    --
    realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
    evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
    madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
    -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <> writes:

    > wrote:
    >> "In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web
    >> applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly
    >> against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</
    >> i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting
    >> windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289)
    >>
    >> Why?

    >
    > Evidently, Flanagan rarely knows what he is talking about, if that.
    > The choice of not using frames or iframes has nothing to do with
    > scripting at all, as since the first day they were supported the
    > `target' attribute of `a' elements was supported. It is a matter of
    > accessibility and of CSS emerging about twelve years ago instead.


    You're putting words in Flanagan's mouth. He's absolutely correct that
    frames are used a lot less than they used to be and he doesn't talk
    about scripting at all in that quote. But you're correct that the main
    reason they're not used that much anymore are the accessibility issues
    and CSS making inline scrolling elements possible.

    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
     
    Joost Diepenmaat, Jul 5, 2008
    #3
  4. Joost Diepenmaat <> writes:

    > You're putting words in Flanagan's mouth. He's absolutely correct that
    > frames are used a lot less than they used to be and he doesn't talk
    > about scripting at all in that quote.


    I mean, he's not making any statement relating scripting to frames,
    he's just saying that at the time javascript became popular, frames
    were too.

    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
     
    Joost Diepenmaat, Jul 5, 2008
    #4
  5. Guest

    Can someone elaborate on the accessibility issues?

    I've just done: http://ClintonBushCharts.org with extensive nested
    frames. I've been very pleased with the result. Would I have been
    smarter to use CSS instead of frames?

    Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he
    deserve this?

    I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search
    crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and
    isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?

    Thanks!
     
    , Jul 5, 2008
    #5
  6. wrote:
    > Can someone elaborate on the accessibility issues?


    You should try a newsgroup where this is on-topic instead.

    > I've just done: http://ClintonBushCharts.org with extensive nested
    > frames.


    Evidently, you hardly know what frames are, nor how to write HTML. You have
    declared HTML 4.01 Frameset and did not use a single `frameset' or `frame'
    element in the homepage tag soup^W^W document. In the document you are
    referring to you are placing invalid declarations for comments above the
    DOCTYPE declaration, triggering Quirks/Compatibility Mode. You are using
    CSS lengths in the value for the `rows' and `cols' attributes of `frameset'
    elements. And I could go on like this for hours.

    <http://validator.w3.org/>

    (I really wonder which language standards committees you want to have served
    on anyway; hopefully nothing Web-related.)

    > I've been very pleased with the result.


    That must be because you have never tested it with different user agents and
    font sizes, for example. So your visitors, among them me, are not pleased
    at all. Remember: The worm must be tasty for the fish, not for the
    fisherman. But as the for the latter, you don't even make an average
    fisherman yet.

    > Would I have been smarter to use CSS instead of [tables]?


    Most definitely.

    > Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he
    > deserve this?


    Search the archives.

    > I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search
    > crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and
    > isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?


    Obviously, but this is off-topic here as well.


    PointedEars
    --
    var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
    ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 5, 2008
    #6
  7. writes:

    > Can someone elaborate on the accessibility issues?


    The basic problem is that it's hard to navigate frames (and see when
    frames are loaded with new content) when you've got a screen reader or
    some similar program (or a braille machine). "Normal" visual browsers
    show blocks of content in spatial relations, but browsers (or browser
    extensions) catering to blind people have a hard time to make frames
    easy to use, and it's in general best to have the document's structure
    reflect the way you'd want to read it from top to bottom (and frames
    subvert this by changing the overall content on the fly).

    Not that javascript and/or iframes are much better in this regard. The
    main problem seems to be that replacing/switching parts of a page is a
    technique that's hard to make accessible to all users. Especially
    users that can only read about one line of text at a time. It may be
    better for those users to have a system that's based on "primitive"
    full-page reloads. Provided they can navigate quickly to the sections
    they're interested in (and leave out all the unnessary iframe / frame
    / div replacement / ajax stuff).

    > I've just done: http://ClintonBushCharts.org with extensive nested
    > frames. I've been very pleased with the result. Would I have been
    > smarter to use CSS instead of frames?


    It would be nice if it worked with javascript disabled. Especially
    since it looks like most of the scripting does the equivalent of the
    <a target="..."> attribute.

    > Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he
    > deserve this?


    Flanagan's book is only the best book that handles most browser
    scripting. It's far from infallible, and contains some information
    that's IMO pretty misleading, when you get down to the details. But I
    think PointedEar's comment was uncalled for.

    > I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search
    > crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and
    > isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?


    Any search crawler worth its salt should handle frames. The main
    problem as I hinted above is accessibility for people with visual
    handicaps.

    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
     
    Joost Diepenmaat, Jul 5, 2008
    #7
  8. meinte:
    > Can someone elaborate on the accessibility issues?
    >
    > I've just done: http://ClintonBushCharts.org with extensive nested
    > frames. I've been very pleased with the result. Would I have been
    > smarter to use CSS instead of frames?


    There's not a single frame on this page.

    and - perhaps more important -

    Where's the JS relevance?

    > Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he
    > deserve this?


    Why should this be relevant for a pure markup question?

    > I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search
    > crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and
    > isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?


    More adequate newsgroups exists for this topic.

    Gregor


    --
    http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
    http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
    http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
     
    Gregor Kofler, Jul 6, 2008
    #8
  9. Gregor Kofler, Jul 6, 2008
    #9
  10. Guest

    To all my apologies for not starting this way:

    If you use frames you stop having "the global namespace" and you start
    having multiple global namespaces (which means the word "global" is,
    at best, somewhat misleading). Therefore, the question of use/non-use
    of frames has a critical impact on your JavaScript.

    OFF TOPIC

    I am one of a large class of people who wish to use the WWW to
    communicate with others but who are not, and do not aspire to be,
    professional web developers. W3C consistently ignores us.

    And the validator ignores the spec. "White space (spaces, newlines,
    tabs, and comments) may appear before or after each section." ( 7.1
    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html ).
     
    , Jul 7, 2008
    #10
  11. Henry Guest

    On Jul 7, 4:00 pm, wrote:
    > To all my apologies for not starting this way:
    >
    > If you use frames you stop having "the global namespace"


    The term 'namespace' has no technical meaning in javascript (it does
    not appear at all in the language's specification), and so there is no
    "the global namespace" as such.

    (For those who would like to argue that the term 'namespace' is
    sufficiently unambiguously defined and used that it can be used in
    relation to javascript even if no specified meaning exists for
    javascript, consider how very different differing approaches to
    namespaces are (think XML namespaces)).

    > and you start having multiple global namespaces


    You start to have multiple global objects.

    > (which means the
    > word "global" is, at best, somewhat misleading).


    That probably depends on where you observe from.

    > Therefore, the question of use/non-use of frames
    > has a critical impact on your JavaScript.


    Certainly using frames can add a layer of complexity to scripts.

    > OFF TOPIC
    >
    > I am one of a large class of people who wish to
    > use the WWW to communicate with others but who are
    > not, and do not aspire to be, professional web
    > developers. W3C consistently ignores us.


    Does something make you think that the W3C pays any attention to
    people who are "professional web developers"?

    > And the validator ignores the spec. "White space (spaces,
    > newlines, tabs, and comments) may appear before or after
    > each section."
    > ( 7.1http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html).


    If that were true then you would be in a position to demonstrate its
    truth. Otherwise nobody will be in a position to correct your
    misconceptions and you will then just be wasting bandwidth.
     
    Henry, Jul 7, 2008
    #11
  12. Guest

    One other note on frames (vs. iframes).

    You can't float content from one frame over another, so if you have a
    calendar widget or similar, it will always be trapped within a frame.
    If you were to use iframes instead, this limitation is removed.
     
    , Jul 15, 2008
    #12
  13. wrote:
    > One other note on frames (vs. iframes).
    >
    > You can't float content from one frame over another, so if you have a
    > calendar widget or similar, it will always be trapped within a frame.
    > If you were to use iframes instead, this limitation is removed.


    It is not.


    PointedEars
    --
    var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
    ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 15, 2008
    #13
    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:
    635
    brucie
    Jan 20, 2004
  2. Philip
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,017
    Karl Groves
    Jun 28, 2004
  3. Ale

    Frames or not Frames...

    Ale, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,007
    Adrienne
    Aug 5, 2005
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,037
    dorayme
    Feb 10, 2006
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    283
Loading...

Share This Page