Frames ???

[Els]

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.

So can relatively positioned divs.

 

[rf]

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>.

I would call that an "absolutely positioned div". I have also just recently
reviewed a site over at alt.html.critique that used "absolutely postioned
divs" or, to use dreamweaverspeak, layers. It was a bloody mess. Took me 10
minutes to de-dreamweaver it into an acceptable page.

Does dreamweaver also have proprietory names for relatively positioned divs
and floated divs?

There are various things that Dreamweaver helps you do with absolutely
positioned <div>s. There are various behaviours you can get using

Javascript,

Ah, so can one with "DHTML" And have you looked at the javascript that
dreamweaver spits out to effect these "behaviours"? It's bad enough to kill
a brown dog, although it's not quite as bad as frontpage.

and some extensions to Dreamweaver also use them. So it helps to handle them
as a set.

Sounds like frontpage extensions

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

So, even macromedia do not understand the nomenclature. If it is an element
then why not call it an element? In it's slackness macromedia is bringing up
a generation of WYSIWYdontG newbies who think that everything on a web page
is a tag. At least, I suppose, they are not calling them "commands"

 

[rf]

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.

So can relatively positioned divs.

So can any other element, if it positioned appropriately or if some other
element is positioned over/under it. Doesn't have to be a div.

As I have said before, confusing dreamweaverspeak.

 

[Els]

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.

So can relatively positioned divs.

So can any other element, if it positioned appropriately or
if some other element is positioned over/under it. Doesn't
have to be a div.

As I have said before, confusing dreamweaverspeak.

Yep

 

[rf]

rf wrote:

http://locusmeus.com/

Real nice site Els. There's a thread over at alt.html.critique, "need some
examples of a personal website". You should throw yours in the bucket, it
will blitz the competition

However this:
http://locusmeus.com/dimage-z1/lions.html

is *disgusting*. Tounge and all !

Almost as bad as
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/kiss.jpg

 

[Barry Pearson]

I would call that an "absolutely positioned div". I have also just
recently reviewed a site over at alt.html.critique that used
"absolutely postioned divs" or, to use dreamweaverspeak, layers. It
was a bloody mess. Took me 10 minutes to de-dreamweaver it into an
acceptable page.

I guess they want a simple word rather than a long phrase. What would you use
in its place? There is perhaps half-an-inch of space on the tab at normal
system font size. (Tell Macromedia! I don't care).

Does dreamweaver also have proprietory names for relatively
positioned divs and floated divs?

They don't need a word for floats, because they don't need to handle them as a
set. (At least, I don't think I've seen much if any need to apply Javascript
or whatever to such a <div>). For relatively-positioned <div>s, see below.

[snip]

Ah, so can one with "DHTML" And have you looked at the javascript
that dreamweaver spits out to effect these "behaviours"? It's bad
enough to kill a brown dog, although it's not quite as bad as
frontpage.

I think most experienced people would agree with that. They are more likely to
use extensions from a supplier like ProjectVII, which generate much
higher-quality Javascript. (I think I got rid of all Dreamweaver-generated
Javascript some time ago, except for experimental purposes).
http://projectseven.com/

Sounds like frontpage extensions

I don't know what Frontpage extensions are. Dreamweaver extensions are
author-time additions to the basic product. Examples:
http://projectseven.com/extensions/

So, even macromedia do not understand the nomenclature. If it is an
element then why not call it an element? In it's slackness macromedia
is bringing up a generation of WYSIWYdontG newbies who think that
everything on a web page is a tag. At least, I suppose, they are not
calling them "commands"

I think I may have misled when talking about what "layer" refers to - sorry.
Apparently, it can include relatively-positioned <div>s.

Here is what the "help" says: "A layer is an HTML page element that you can
position anywhere on your page. Layers can contain text, images, or any other
content that you can place in the body of an HTML document. Note: A layer in
Dreamweaver is a div tag with absolute or relative position. Layers, as
described in this chapter, refer to the Dreamweaver layout concept, not the
layer tag".

Here is what the "reference" says about "layer": "A layer element is a
positionable element in Navigator 4's object model ... will not be implemented
in new browsers or W3C standards."

Here is what the "reference" says about "div": "The div element gives
structure and context to any block-level content in a document. Unlike some
structural elements that have very specific connotations attached to them (the
p element, for instance), the author is free to give meaning to each
particular div element by virtue of the element's attribute settings and
nested content. Each div element becomes a generic block-level container for
all context within the required start and end tags."

I suspect they have trouble getting the right level of explanation for each
purpose. Some people probably can't even manage with that level of detail
about "layer", and just want to use them for their purpose. Other people need
the full details. I think some people here over-estimate the ability of
inexperienced people to get to grips with the precise terminology.

(Heck - I bet most non-photographers, and even some photographers, think that
"telephoto lens" means the same as "long-focal-length lens"! Realistically, I
suppose in every-day use that has now replaced the original technical
definition. And that doesn't stop people taking good photographs. Here is a
reasonable non-technical summary I've just found: "Telephoto refers to a
category of optical designs where the front of the lens has a short positive
focal length and the rear has a longer negative focal length, resulting in a
system whose total focal length is long, and that is overall shorter than its
focal length". We can all be a bit careless over specialist terms in other
people's fields).

 

[rf]

Here is what the "help" says: "A layer is an HTML page element that you can
position anywhere on your page. Layers can contain text, images, or any other
content that you can place in the body of an HTML document. Note: A layer in
Dreamweaver is a div tag <--- element

with absolute or relative position. Layers, as
described in this chapter, refer to the Dreamweaver layout concept, not the
layer tag". <--- element

Exactly what I am arguing against. Confusing and overly complicated.

"layers can contain..."

If I want to asbolutely position an image I dont use a "layer" or an
absolutely positioned div as a "container" for the image. I absolutely
position the image element itself.

Besides the ease with which dreamweaver (and frontpage for that matter)
allows one to "position" things is the main reason users of said products
are able to produce such horrendously bad web pages.

 

[Els]

Real nice site Els. There's a thread over at
alt.html.critique, "need some examples of a personal
website". You should throw yours in the bucket, it will
blitz the competition

Thanks, I've seen the thread, but it looks like the OP has
gone already.

However this:
http://locusmeus.com/dimage-z1/lions.html

is *disgusting*. Tounge and all !

It's actually a picture from a series of 4:
http://locusmeus.com/dimage-z1/lionsx4.html

Almost as bad as
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/kiss.jpg

I wish I had shot that pic though

 

[derek giroulle]

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

what kind of user hates I-frames in what context/and what usage?
sorry there are too many generalisations in that statement to make it
useful
can you please expatiate?

derek

 

[Karl Groves]

what kind of user hates I-frames in what context/and what usage?
sorry there are too many generalisations in that statement to make it
useful
can you please expatiate?

derek

*Most* users I have observed during usability tests have expressed
displeasure with i-frames and were less likely to find content that was
within the i-frame.

You're right. Context and usage may have played a role. Because of client
confidentiality, I cannot post an URL.

My impression was that it probably did not matter much what the context was,
however I have not tested with a "good" implementation.

-Karl

 

[Whitecrest]

*Most* users I have observed during usability tests have expressed
displeasure with i-frames and were less likely to find content that was
within the i-frame.

You're right. Context and usage may have played a role. Because of client
confidentiality, I cannot post an URL.

Hey My company did a test and it showed that *Most" users LIKED popups,
flash and javascript navigation. But due to confidentiality, I can not
show you the proof either....

 

[tlshell]

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.

On a normal basis, Netscape doesn't display them. I use Proxomitron
which turns them into clickable links for me, but as all I see if
"inline link" or something to that effect, I only click if I wasn't
happy with the amount of info I already read. There may be other
browsers that also have issues with iframes.

 

[tlshell]

Hey My company did a test and it showed that *Most" users LIKED popups,
flash and javascript navigation. But due to confidentiality, I can not
show you the proof either....

Probably a junior high school.

 

[SpaceGirl]

On a normal basis, Netscape doesn't display them. I use Proxomitron
which turns them into clickable links for me, but as all I see if
"inline link" or something to that effect, I only click if I wasn't
happy with the amount of info I already read. There may be other
browsers that also have issues with iframes.

Not ones that people use. Only 'old' Netscape has no iframes support. And
we're talking a fraction of a % of actual web users here, so, is it even
relevant? Technology has to move on at some point or we'd all still be
writing HTML3 for 1st gen browsers.

 

[Whitecrest]

On a normal basis, Netscape doesn't display them. I use Proxomitron
which turns them into clickable links for me, but as all I see if
"inline link" or something to that effect, I only click if I wasn't
happy with the amount of info I already read. There may be other
browsers that also have issues with iframes.

How anyone in this forum browses the web is completely irrelevant when
compared to a "typical". If that were not the case, then IE would not
have a 90% market saturation.

 

[Whitecrest]

Probably a junior high school.

Quick comeback. A little predictable, and quite droll though...

 

[SpaceGirl]

How anyone in this forum browses the web is completely irrelevant when
compared to a "typical". If that were not the case, then IE would not
have a 90% market saturation.

Exactly! It's sooooooooo easy for some web developers on their little Linux
boxes or Apple Macs to forget that out there in the real world, people are
using bog standard PCs, Windows and IE. Everything else is irrelevant for
the most, and when people start ranting about technology blah blah blah...
users *dont care*! When you read a magazine, do you give a shit how it was
typeset, what software was used, what brand of printing press was used, what
weight of paper, what are the Pantone values...?

Annoys me Web designers are way to techie for their own good. I learned a
LOT about this over the last 6 months, working with a big US band who
couldn't care LESS about the tech, just what it does!

 

[Whitecrest]

Annoys me Web designers are way to techie for their own good. I learned a
LOT about this over the last 6 months, working with a big US band who
couldn't care LESS about the tech, just what it does!

Another point is that the people that come to the band's site are fans,
or want to be. And if they have to turn off a popup blocker, or turn on
Javascript, or download Flash to enjoy the site, they will.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Quick comeback. A little predictable, and quite droll though...

But you haven't denied it...

 

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

But you haven't denied it...

What's wrong with a junior high school? A junior high school can be a
very representative target group, depending on the site you have.

My personal experience is that most users simply don't give a rats ass
about how a web site is designed under the hood, and rightfully so. Why
should they care? I don't care about the quality of the blueprints for
my car, either, as long as it does what I want in real life.