Frames ???

[Ria Van Heerden]

Ria Van Heerden wrote:

Please read <http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post> before responding.

That depends on how you use them. Its very easy to make a site inaccessible
using layers.

It should be noted, however, that while CSS is the tool that is generally
used to produce layers on a website, the use of CSS doesn't automatically
mean you are using layers.

I used layers in the following website - was this done correctly ??

http://www.websitedevelopment.co.za/cramtech

Regards
Ria

 

[SpaceGirl]

quote [tables are bad] unquote

What do you mean? I use tables to construct websites all the time.

Users must be able to easily navigate the site and download and upload
files.

Is layers a good or bad thing and how does it hamper my site progress up
search engine rankings ???


It all depends on the site. Most of the time, Frames Are Bad (write

it
on

a
sticky and stick it to the side of your screen, along with "CSS is good"
and
"tables are bad"). However, there are good reasons for the

application
of

inline frames (iframes, rather than frames) on occassions - with one minor
caveat; the use of any frames anywhere can severely damage the usability
of
your web site, and hamper it's progress up search engine ranking.

And so do I William, and well done for having the bottle to say it!
Now stand well back and await the flamers... lol

We regularly use iframes (rather than regular frames) on our web sites - but
we are aware of the impact they have and take appropriate actions to
compensate.

 

[rf]

I used layers in the following website

http://www.websitedevelopment.co.za/cramtech

No you didn't. You used absolutely positioned <div>s.

"Layers" is a Macromedia invention and really means divs.

- was this done correctly ??

IMHO no, not really It is not liquid. Everything is fixed in place on
the canvas. If I make my font larger the text overlays the images. If I
change my canvas size I get wide vacant space or horizontal scroll bars.

Then again using such things as DreamWeaver makes it really easy to misuse
positioning.

BTW you are missing some vital information on that site. Where are you? All
I can see is that you are somewhere in South Africa, a pretty large place,
or at least that your TLD is .za

 

[Karl Groves]

We regularly use iframes (rather than regular frames) on our web sites - but
we are aware of the impact they have and take appropriate actions to
compensate.

What action do you take to compensate for the fact that users hate them?

-Karl

 

[Ria Van Heerden]

No you didn't. You used absolutely positioned <div>s.

"Layers" is a Macromedia invention and really means divs.


IMHO no, not really It is not liquid. Everything is fixed in place on
the canvas. If I make my font larger the text overlays the images. If I
change my canvas size I get wide vacant space or horizontal scroll bars.

Then again using such things as DreamWeaver makes it really easy to misuse
positioning.

Where can I learn how to use layers correctly ???

BTW you are missing some vital information on that site. Where are you? All
I can see is that you are somewhere in South Africa, a pretty large place,
or at least that your TLD is .za

Thanks - I will insert more info into the site ;-)

 

[Whitecrest]

What action do you take to compensate for the fact that users hate them?

Man your users hate everything but plain bla text don't they. Glad I
don't have your users.

 

[rf]

Where can I learn how to use layers correctly ???

Don't think layers, that is dreamweaverspeak.

Think "pieces of content" and "presentation of those peices". The former is
the job of HTML, the latter the job of CSS. You will find that all you need
is a very small number of divs and, of course, the othere elements on your
page.

I stole your opening page and de-dreamweaver-ed it:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/cram/

Notice the simplicity. The KISS principle is always applicable.

As to learning this, forget dreamweaver, it produces Bad Code. There are
endless tutorials out there on HTML and CSS and how to do it by hand. You
can google for them but a better idea is to lurk here/search the archive.
Every day somebody asks about tutorials and gets lots of links, there is a
thread happening now, "links to html tutorials"

 

[rf]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/cram/

ps: don't forget to drag the borders of your browser around to see what
happens with different canvas sizes.

 

[SpaceGirl]

What action do you take to compensate for the fact that users hate them?

-Karl

Users dont. The average user doesn't give a shit. Only web designers care
about this stuff. Users only get pissed off when things dont work the way
they are supposed to, or a site is such a shitty design they go elsewhere.
That's the bottom line - they basically dont care about the technology one
bit.

 

[Karl Groves]

Users dont. The average user doesn't give a shit. Only web designers care
about this stuff. Users only get pissed off when things dont work the way
they are supposed to, or a site is such a shitty design they go elsewhere.
That's the bottom line - they basically dont care about the technology one
bit.

And your experience in a usability lab is what?
Please refrain from commenting on what users want until you've spent some
time in a usability lab.

Common comments heard by users when experiencing i-frames run along the
lines of "why is all this information in such a small space?"

Performance data indicates that users' ability to find information that is
contained in i-frames is also lower than it would be otherwise.

-Karl

 

[Ria Van Heerden]

ps: don't forget to drag the borders of your browser around to see what
happens with different canvas sizes.

Thanks for the trouble that you did

Ria

 

[Whitecrest]

And your experience in a usability lab is what?
Please refrain from commenting on what users want until you've spent some
time in a usability lab.

yea, yea, yea...

Common comments heard by users when experiencing i-frames run along the
lines of "why is all this information in such a small space?"

So what was REALLY being tested was IMPROPER use of an iframe caused
problems. Yea, I agree with that.

Performance data indicates that users' ability to find information that is
contained in i-frames is also lower than it would be otherwise.

Unless they were trying to sync slides to Media player on a anything
other than IE (before netscape 7) Because you can not do that without
using an iframe for synchronization. But who cares about that, as long
as it works on IE it does not matter right?

My point is there is a proper time, place, and way to use frames, and
iframes.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Users dont. The average user doesn't give a shit. Only web designers
care

And your experience in a usability lab is what?
Please refrain from commenting on what users want until you've spent some
time in a usability lab.

So suddenly you know me? I've spent a lot of time as part of various UAT
and OAT teams in the past. I'm speaking from experience, not making it up!

Common comments heard by users when experiencing i-frames run along the
lines of "why is all this information in such a small space?"

Yep, it happens. There's a time and a place for iframes, or scrolling
layers - even fixed fonts, Flash and DHTML. Each of these could be bad, but
used correctly they can be assets.

Performance data indicates that users' ability to find information that is
contained in i-frames is also lower than it would be otherwise.

That's to broad a brush honey. You cant make a statement like that and apply
it to everything. While iframes inherently have issues, that does not mean
that they are useless - it just takes a smarter designer to apply the
functionality only when called for, and in a way that does not limit the
user or distract them from the content.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Don't think layers, that is dreamweaverspeak.

layers with a little "l"... I think it's perfectly acceptible these days. It
sums up exactly what a DIV does (with CSS applied). Anything else is
confusing.

People need to learn to keep things simple... no wonder people get so scared
of computers.

 

[rf]

layers with a little "l"... I think it's perfectly acceptible these days. It
sums up exactly what a DIV does (with CSS applied). Anything else is
confusing.

If it's a <div> why call it a layer, why not call it a div?

You wouldn't call a <p> a "textual enclosure section" would you?

People need to learn to keep things simple... no wonder people get so scared
of computers.

What is not simple about calling something what it is? A div is a div,
unless you want to complicate matters and call it a tag

Complicating matters by using several different names for the same thing is
what makes people scared of computers.

If you have not noticed I am a firm believer in the KISS principle. I am
also a firm believer in calling things what they are, as in attributes,
elements, rules, properties, not "tags" and "commands"

 

[Whitecrest]

layers with a little "l"... I think it's perfectly acceptible these days. It
sums up exactly what a DIV does (with CSS applied). Anything else is
confusing.
People need to learn to keep things simple... no wonder people get so scared
of computers.

No wonder developers are scared of CSS....

 

[David Dorward]

layers with a little "l"... I think it's perfectly acceptible these days.
It sums up exactly what a DIV does (with CSS applied). Anything else is
confusing.

No, "layer" is confusing period. Sometimes people use it to mean what CSS
calls a layer, sometimes people use it to mean what Macromedia call a
layer, and sometimes people use it to mean the <layer> tag that Netscape 4
used.

The term is best avoided - even more so then "DHTML".

 

[Els]

No, "layer" is confusing period. Sometimes people use it to
mean what CSS calls a layer, sometimes people use it to
mean what Macromedia call a layer, and sometimes people use
it to mean the <layer> tag that Netscape 4 used.

The term is best avoided - even more so then "DHTML".

I don't use any of the programs which use layers, and I think
it's confusing nonetheless. To me it implies that one should
be on top of the other or at least overlap, while when I use
divs, I usually have them side by side, not covering each
other.

 

[Barry Pearson]

If it's a <div> why call it a layer, why not call it a div?

[snip]

Dreamweaver uses the word "layer" for "absolutely positioned <div>". Not just
any <div>.

There are various things that Dreamweaver helps you do with absolutely
positioned <div>s. There are various behaviours you can get using Javascript,
and some extensions to Dreamweaver also use them. So it helps to handle them
as a set. And "layer" is the word they happen to use, for example for the
panel that lists the ones that currently exist. I doubt if the full phrase
would fit the panel!

If you just want a plain <div>, you can press the button that says "Insert Div
Tag". (They mean "element").

 

[Barry Pearson]

Els wrote:
[snip]

I don't use any of the programs which use layers, and I think
it's confusing nonetheless. To me it implies that one should
be on top of the other or at least overlap, while when I use
divs, I usually have them side by side, not covering each
other.

Dreamweaver uses "layer" for "absolutely positioned <div>". And those can
potentially overlap.