Frames-Oriented Question

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Revd. Norle Enturbulata, Apr 7, 2004.

  1. First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should be
    enough said, hm?

    Now my question. I'm interested in changing my pages in order that a
    three-tier control process goes into place. It would be like the following
    from top to bottom frames:

    1. Title Banner frame. Holds logo.
    2. Icon Menu frame. Has icons for sections of the site.
    3. Tab Submenu frame. Has tabs for subsections of the sections selected by
    the Icon Menu #2.
    4. Contents frame. Shows content selected via the Tab Submenu frame. Also
    navigated with bookmarks inside each contents page shown - only within
    single page if at all.
    5. Footer frame. Holds clickable buttons for supported causes (like the EFF
    for instance).

    In my first conceptualization of this, the Title Banner always stays the
    same. In the second revision, it changes depending on which item off the
    Icon Menu is chosen.

    The Icon Menu controls what is displayed in the Tab Submenu. In the second
    revision this menu affects what is shown in the Title Banner frame.

    The Tab Submenu frame has tabs representing subsections of the sections
    delineated by the Icon Menu. For instance, I have a Gallery chosen at Icon
    Menu level. There are subsections of it, one for each type of cartoon to be
    viewed ("Business", "Computers", "Showbiz", "Editorial" and so on), and the
    selection of each causes a different contact sheet of thumbnails to be
    viewable in the Contents frame.

    The Contents frame shows whatever is selected, first, in the Tab Submenu
    frame. In the case of the Gallery icon, and its attendant Submenu of
    cartoon types, a contact sheet of thumbnails is shown in the Contents frame.
    Clicking on the thumbnails of course shows the graphic-in-question, with
    navigation buttons to go backwards and forwards in the set of graphics shown
    in the contact sheet.

    The Footer frame stays the same at all times.

    The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First, sections
    of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
    bookmark use a dark comedy. Navigation has a potential for complicating out
    of the realm of manageability whenever I add anything at this point. Tabs
    are becoming more of a standard paradigm all the time, and compact enough on
    the screen to be quite attractive for use.

    Second, utilizing this structure makes it easier to manage, because less of
    it changes as a result of simply adding a new song or cartoon to the
    selectables involved.

    Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here. Thanks
    in advance.

    --
    Steve Goodman
    * EarthLight Productions
    * http://www.earthlight.net
     
    Revd. Norle Enturbulata, Apr 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    brucie Guest

    in post: <news:AHUcc.270$>
    "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> said:

    > First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.


    but... but... but... :-(

    --
    b r u c i e
     
    brucie, Apr 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

    >First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should be
    >enough said, hm?


    This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
    You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
    it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
    them.

    >Now my question.


    In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
    question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
    actually is.

    [snip descriptions of frames]

    If you really, really want to use frames then I'd advise setting up a
    top level frameset that contains your frames (banner, icons, tabs,
    content, footer). The icons will all have target="_top" and thus will
    load new top level framesets (thus making at least this level
    bookmarkable) and allowing new content to be loaded into banner, tabs
    and content in one go.
    The tabs will all have target="content" and will just load new
    content.

    >The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First, sections
    >of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
    >bookmark use a dark comedy.


    Sorry, but what does this maen. Frames are what makes it impossible to
    bookmark sites. So how does a non-frame site become a 'dark comedy'
    for bookmarking?

    > Navigation has a potential for complicating out
    >of the realm of manageability whenever I add anything at this point.


    If the navigation is managed via server side includes it's no more
    complex to manage than frames without all the problems for the end
    user.

    > Tabs
    >are becoming more of a standard paradigm all the time, and compact enough on
    >the screen to be quite attractive for use.


    But there's nothing about tabs that forces the uses of frames, is
    there?

    >Second, utilizing this structure makes it easier to manage, because less of
    >it changes as a result of simply adding a new song or cartoon to the
    >selectables involved.


    The same structure can be managed without using frames at all. You've
    created a hierarchical structure for your site - use that hieracrchy
    to define which navigation gets included by SSI, PHP, ASP or whatever.

    Every page belongs to a section (the icons) which determines which
    banner and tabs are shown, and that's really it - one variable
    controls pretty much everything. Anything extra (such as highlighting
    the current tab) can easily be added on top.

    >Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here. Thanks
    >in advance.


    Not using frames is _good_ advice. Ignore it if you like, but I'm
    still puzzled as to why you posted in the first place. Your message
    came across as "This is what I'm going to do and I don't care what
    anyone says about it." Did you actually have some question you wanted
    to ask?

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Apr 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

    >First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.


    Frames are bad.
    Don't use them.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Apr 7, 2004
    #4
  5. "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
    >
    > >First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should

    be
    > >enough said, hm?

    >
    > This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
    > You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
    > it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
    > them.
    >
    > >Now my question.

    >
    > In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
    > question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
    > actually is.


    Go back to school then.
     
    Revd. Norle Enturbulata, Apr 7, 2004
    #5
  6. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Kris Guest

    In article <AHUcc.270$>,
    "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

    > Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.


    I'll waste them somewhere else then.

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Apr 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
    >"Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Now my question.

    >>
    >> In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
    >> question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
    >> actually is.

    >
    >Go back to school then.


    Please quote whatever your question was. You described the data
    structure you were going to use and gave some wishy-washy
    justifications for it, but didn't actually ask any questions.

    At the moment, based on your attitude all I can assume is that you
    don't actually want any help, just to strut about a bit.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Apr 7, 2004
    #7
  8. "Kris" <> wrote in message
    news:4all.nl...
    > In article <AHUcc.270$>,
    > "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.

    >
    > I'll waste them somewhere else then.


    Good idea. I'm interested in more than a narrow path of information.
     
    Revd. Norle Enturbulata, Apr 7, 2004
    #8
  9. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Kris Guest

    In article <JZXcc.400$3U.262@newsfe1-win>,
    "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

    > > > Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.

    > >
    > > I'll waste them somewhere else then.

    >
    > Good idea. I'm interested in more than a narrow path of information.


    Great. You keep your eyes wiiide open in that direction there, then I
    can killfile you and continue my life, ok?

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Apr 7, 2004
    #9
  10. Toby A Inkster, Apr 7, 2004
    #10
  11. "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
    >
    > >First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should

    be
    > >enough said, hm?

    >
    > This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
    > You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
    > it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
    > them.
    >
    > >Now my question.

    >
    > In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
    > question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
    > actually is.
    >
    > [snip descriptions of frames]
    >
    > If you really, really want to use frames then I'd advise setting up a
    > top level frameset that contains your frames (banner, icons, tabs,
    > content, footer). The icons will all have target="_top" and thus will
    > load new top level framesets (thus making at least this level
    > bookmarkable) and allowing new content to be loaded into banner, tabs
    > and content in one go.
    > The tabs will all have target="content" and will just load new
    > content.
    >
    > >The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First,

    sections
    > >of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
    > >bookmark use a dark comedy.

    >
    > Sorry, but what does this maen. Frames are what makes it impossible to
    > bookmark sites. So how does a non-frame site become a 'dark comedy'
    > for bookmarking?


    I wish to migrate away from the model that uses a single-level menu calling
    subpages, and I don't want to use drop-downs. Top-level model tends to
    require bookmarks for subnavigation without reloading the entire menu
    (insofar as caching is concerned, but still a reloading problem, yes?) I'd
    also like to separate the content from the interface a bit more, with the
    exception of the obvious hyperlink/text aspects.

    > > Navigation has a potential for complicating out
    > >of the realm of manageability whenever I add anything at this point.

    >
    > If the navigation is managed via server side includes it's no more
    > complex to manage than frames without all the problems for the end
    > user.


    I prefer not to deal with server-sided includes until it becomes evident
    that redundant stuff is being produced as a side effect of the redesign.
    What about possible lag time being introduced on server-side includes,
    though?

    > > Tabs
    > >are becoming more of a standard paradigm all the time, and compact enough

    on
    > >the screen to be quite attractive for use.

    >
    > But there's nothing about tabs that forces the uses of frames, is
    > there?


    I don't feel required to go with 'em, but in order to avoid the menu/page
    reloading, and go to a more modular design.

    > >Second, utilizing this structure makes it easier to manage, because less

    of
    > >it changes as a result of simply adding a new song or cartoon to the
    > >selectables involved.

    >
    > The same structure can be managed without using frames at all. You've
    > created a hierarchical structure for your site - use that hieracrchy
    > to define which navigation gets included by SSI, PHP, ASP or whatever.
    >
    > Every page belongs to a section (the icons) which determines which
    > banner and tabs are shown, and that's really it - one variable
    > controls pretty much everything. Anything extra (such as highlighting
    > the current tab) can easily be added on top.
    >
    > >Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.

    Thanks
    > >in advance.

    >
    > Not using frames is _good_ advice. Ignore it if you like, but I'm
    > still puzzled as to why you posted in the first place. Your message
    > came across as "This is what I'm going to do and I don't care what
    > anyone says about it." Did you actually have some question you wanted
    > to ask?


    No, it was "this is what I would like to do, and what are your thoughts
    about controlling frame content from other frames, in perhaps a multi-level
    control interface?" I anticipated the anti-frames snaps by the other
    flat-out no-explanation "frames suck" comments made to other folks' queries
    about frames handling. What kind of development environment is it where all
    people know is that some things are "bad" and shouldn't be used? It would
    be more helpful to explain to the asker of such queries WHY they think
    "frames are bad". Frankly the last time I'd heard negative press about 'em
    it was in the days before all browsers handled frames.

    But I suppose it didn't come out that way, now did it? My apologies. And
    thanks for the response.

    > Steve
    >
    > --
    > "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    > I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
    >
    > Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Revd. Norle Enturbulata, Apr 7, 2004
    #11
  12. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 23:22:49 +0100, "Revd. Norle Enturbulata"
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > It would be more helpful to explain to the asker of such queries WHY
    > they think "frames are bad".


    That's what the links do, if you take the time to read them. It is
    simply much easier (and better for other Usenetters) to post links
    rather than trying to explain the whole thing in one post.

    In case you do actually want to read about some of the problems with
    frames, here are some of those links:

    http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzovic/tom/web/frames.html
    http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/
    http://www.google.com/webmasters/2.html (see under "Your page uses
    frames")

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Apr 8, 2004
    #12
  13. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:00:12 +0100, "Revd. Norle Enturbulata"
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.


    Why are the two mutually exclusive?

    As a web author, I couldn't care less about frames. I prefer not to use
    them myself, but hey, whatever.

    As a user, I *hate* frames. They really frustrate me. And I know lots of
    others who feel the same. Is that really the reaction you are looking
    for in your visitors?

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Apr 8, 2004
    #13
  14. "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:flgv8zr54p5g$.fbqow1jbfom7$...
    > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:00:12 +0100, "Revd. Norle Enturbulata"
    > <> declared in alt.html:
    >
    > > First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

    >
    > Why are the two mutually exclusive?
    >
    > As a web author, I couldn't care less about frames. I prefer not to use
    > them myself, but hey, whatever.
    >
    > As a user, I *hate* frames. They really frustrate me. And I know lots of
    > others who feel the same. Is that really the reaction you are looking
    > for in your visitors?


    Actually I find that most bad frames pages are badly implemented and
    maintained frames pages, especially in the realm of cleaning up after
    themselves. Did I cover all of it or is there something else?


    --
    Rev. Norle Enturbulata
    "Church" of Cartoonism
    *
    Comedy is the Hub of the Universe
     
    Revd. Norle Enturbulata, Apr 8, 2004
    #14
  15. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Gwilym Calon Guest

    "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote in message
    news:MU%cc.472$...

    [snip, snip, snip]

    Guys, guys.... c'mon.... What is it that looks like a troll, walks like a troll,
    and talks like a troll?

    -------
    GC
     
    Gwilym Calon, Apr 8, 2004
    #15
  16. Quoth the raven named Revd. Norle Enturbulata:

    > ... It would be more helpful to explain to the asker of such
    > queries WHY they think "frames are bad".


    Ok. Here's the scenario.

    I find your site. Let's say you have a hundred pages or so. I read
    for, oh, twenty minutes and I find a page about something I want to
    read (or buy!) but I don't have the time for it just now. Wifey just
    called dinner is ready.

    I can't bookmark this page to come back to after dinner; I can only
    bookmark your main URL. I will have to spend another twenty (well,
    maybe ten) minutes trying to find the page again. Nah, I'll just go
    back to Google and look for another site that sells the same thing.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 8, 2004
    #16
  17. Mark Parnell wrote:

    > That's what the links do, if you take the time to read them. It is
    > simply much easier (and better for other Usenetters) to post links
    > rather than trying to explain the whole thing in one post.

    ^
    again and again

    :)

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, Apr 8, 2004
    #17
  18. Revd. Norle Enturbulata wrote:

    > I prefer not to deal with server-sided includes until it becomes evident
    > that redundant stuff is being produced as a side effect of the redesign.
    > What about possible lag time being introduced on server-side includes,
    > though?


    Negligible, and certainly less then the lag time introduced by using bullet
    proof frames unless the user has a very fast connection and you have a very
    slow CPU. Even then you can preprocess to generate static files.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, Apr 8, 2004
    #18
  19. Revd. Norle Enturbulata

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    >> ... It would be more helpful to explain to the asker of such
    >> queries WHY they think "frames are bad".

    >
    >Ok. Here's the scenario.
    >
    >I can't bookmark this page to come back to after dinner;


    You can when frames are properly implemented (which is rare), frames
    cause other issues that cannot be worked around.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Apr 8, 2004
    #19
  20. "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:Hd3dc.14707$...
    > Quoth the raven named Revd. Norle Enturbulata:
    >
    > > ... It would be more helpful to explain to the asker of such
    > > queries WHY they think "frames are bad".

    >
    > Ok. Here's the scenario.
    >
    > I find your site. Let's say you have a hundred pages or so. I read
    > for, oh, twenty minutes and I find a page about something I want to
    > read (or buy!) but I don't have the time for it just now. Wifey just
    > called dinner is ready.
    >
    > I can't bookmark this page to come back to after dinner; I can only
    > bookmark your main URL. I will have to spend another twenty (well,
    > maybe ten) minutes trying to find the page again. Nah, I'll just go
    > back to Google and look for another site that sells the same thing.


    Okay, I'll include a "bookmark this page" script. End of problem. What
    else?

    --
    Rev. Norle Enturbulata
    "Church" of Cartoonism
    *
    Comedy is the Hub of the Universe
     
    Revd. Norle Enturbulata, Apr 8, 2004
    #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. 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:
    1,016
    Karl Groves
    Jun 28, 2004
  3. Ale

    Frames or not Frames...

    Ale, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,003
    Adrienne
    Aug 5, 2005
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    468
    Bruno Desthuilliers
    May 26, 2008
  5. rolo
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    197
    Robert Klemme
    Apr 9, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page