Frameset

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Paul W Smith, Dec 17, 2005.

  1. Paul W Smith

    Paul W Smith Guest

    Is it possible to join two frames together seamlessly?

    I have a page with two fames on it, the page is split horizontally. I have
    two tables, one on each frame and they line up. I have no frame border. I
    have the bottom border on the top table and right left and bottom borders on
    the lower table.

    I cannot get this to look like one 'outlined' cell, I seem always to get a
    one pixel blank where the frame split is.

    Does anyone know a way to get rid of this?
     
    Paul W Smith, Dec 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul W Smith

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Paul W Smith wrote:

    > Is it possible to join two frames together seamlessly?
    >
    > I have a page with two fames on it, the page is split horizontally. I have
    > two tables, one on each frame and they line up. I have no frame border. I
    > have the bottom border on the top table and right left and bottom borders on
    > the lower table.
    >
    > I cannot get this to look like one 'outlined' cell, I seem always to get a
    > one pixel blank where the frame split is.
    >
    > Does anyone know a way to get rid of this?

    Hmm. I would suggest dumping the frames as they are not good at all for
    search engion opptomization.
    Then just stick with a 2 colum table instead.
    Alternativly if you want to use the frame. You could maybe set 0
    boarders on the frameset.
    That might work.
    --
    Regards Chad.
     
    Chaddy2222, Dec 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul W Smith

    Jake Guest

    In message <>,
    Chaddy2222 <> writes
    >
    >Paul W Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Is it possible to join two frames together seamlessly?
    >>
    >> I have a page with two fames on it, the page is split horizontally. I have
    >> two tables, one on each frame and they line up. I have no frame border. I
    >> have the bottom border on the top table and right left and bottom borders on
    >> the lower table.
    >>
    >> I cannot get this to look like one 'outlined' cell, I seem always to get a
    >> one pixel blank where the frame split is.
    >>
    >> Does anyone know a way to get rid of this?

    >Hmm. I would suggest dumping the frames as they are not good at all for
    >search engion opptomization.


    Interesting. Would you like to expand on that?

    >Then just stick with a 2 colum table instead.
    >Alternativly if you want to use the frame. You could maybe set 0
    >boarders on the frameset.
    >That might work.


    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
     
    Jake, Dec 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Paul W Smith

    Rob McAninch Guest

    Jake>:
    > In message <>,
    > Chaddy2222 <> writes
    >> Paul W Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Hmm. I would suggest dumping the frames as they are not good at all for
    >> search engion opptomization.

    >
    >
    > Interesting. Would you like to expand on that?


    http://maps.google.com/search?q=search engine optimization frames

    A couple specific articles, check out the one from useIT.
    http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/article.php/2167901
    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

    Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard,
    if you take the time to do it. The usability is still pretty awful
    though just as that article from 1996 points out (although the
    browsers in use have certainly changed).

    I've seen some JavaScript that can make bookmarking work, or even a
    server side method could do a similar job by passing parameters on
    the URL and building the framesets programatically.

    --
    Rob McAninch
    http://rock13.com
     
    Rob McAninch, Dec 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Paul W Smith

    Mark Simon Guest

    Paul W Smith wrote:
    > Is it possible to join two frames together seamlessly?
    >
    > I have a page with two fames on it, the page is split horizontally. I have
    > two tables, one on each frame and they line up. I have no frame border. I
    > have the bottom border on the top table and right left and bottom borders on
    > the lower table.
    >
    > I cannot get this to look like one 'outlined' cell, I seem always to get a
    > one pixel blank where the frame split is.
    >
    > Does anyone know a way to get rid of this?
    >
    >


    Why are you using frames here? The whole purpose of frames is to allow
    independent parts of the window, but it looks as if you're using frames
    for positioning instead. Whay aren't you using one big table or divs
    with absolute css positioning?

    As regards frame borders, although most of the syntax of frames is
    standard and W3C standardised, frame borders are not, and it is very
    tricky fuse two frames together without some residual spaceing,
    especially if you're trying to make it browser independent.

    Mark
     
    Mark Simon, Dec 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Paul W Smith

    Jake Guest

    In message <>, Rob McAninch
    <> writes
    >Jake>:
    >> In message <>,
    >>Chaddy2222 <> writes
    >>> Paul W Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Hmm. I would suggest dumping the frames as they are not good at all for
    >>> search engion opptomization.

    >> Interesting. Would you like to expand on that?

    >
    >http://maps.google.com/search?q=search engine optimization frames
    >
    >A couple specific articles, check out the one from useIT.
    >http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/article.php/2167901


    Nothing new here. Just standard 'good practice' coding as it's always
    been ..

    >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

    "Since mainstream browsers still do not implement HTML 4.0 ....... "
    ;-)
    >
    >Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard, if
    >you take the time to do it.


    Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly is very easy
    indeed. I was interested in seeing what the poster had discovered that
    wasn't generally known.

    >The usability is still pretty awful though just as that article from
    >1996 points out (although the browsers in use have certainly changed).


    Usability can be awful, good, and very good (just like all sites). It
    depends very much on the design and the use it's put to.
    >
    >I've seen some JavaScript that can make bookmarking work, or even a
    >server side method could do a similar job by passing parameters on the
    >URL and building the framesets programatically.
    >

    Regards.

    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
     
    Jake, Dec 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Paul W Smith

    dorayme Guest

    In article <43a5043c$0$9289$>,
    Mark Simon <> wrote:

    > Paul W Smith wrote:
    > > Is it possible to join two frames together seamlessly?


    > As regards frame borders, although most of the syntax of frames is
    > standard and W3C standardised, frame borders are not, and it is very
    > tricky fuse two frames together without some residual spaceing,
    > especially if you're trying to make it browser independent.


    Yes, if I recall, you need to think carefully about the
    background colours of the frames. If you go with all the same
    (and white!), you stand the best chance. The space that some
    browsers leave when you turn frame borders off can be defaulted
    to white. (As TI once said, what's wrong with borders? They are
    rather good in those situations where frames are at least prima
    facie useful)
     
    dorayme, Dec 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Paul W Smith

    Rob McAninch Guest

    Jake>:
    > In message <>, Rob McAninch
    > <> writes
    >>
    >> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard,
    >> if you take the time to do it.

    >
    > Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly is very easy indeed.
    > I was interested in seeing what the poster had discovered that
    > wasn't generally known.


    Well, the items that are generally known still aren't resolved do we
    really need to find more problems? ;-)


    >> The usability is still pretty awful though just as that article from
    >> 1996 points out (although the browsers in use have certainly changed).

    >
    >
    > Usability can be awful, good, and very good (just like all sites). It
    > depends very much on the design and the use it's put to.


    Show me a framed site that has good usability (compared to a site
    that doesn't use frames but similar amount of
    information/interaction), I won't ask for "very good".


    --
    Rob McAninch
    http://rock13.com
     
    Rob McAninch, Dec 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Paul W Smith

    Jake Guest

    In message <>, Rob McAninch
    <> writes
    >Jake>:
    >> In message <>, Rob McAninch
    >><> writes
    >>>
    >>> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard,
    >>> if you take the time to do it.

    >> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly is very easy
    >>indeed.
    >> I was interested in seeing what the poster had discovered that
    >> wasn't generally known.

    >
    >Well, the items that are generally known still aren't resolved do we
    >really need to find more problems? ;-)
    >
    >
    >>> The usability is still pretty awful though just as that article from
    >>>1996 points out (although the browsers in use have certainly changed).

    >> Usability can be awful, good, and very good (just like all sites).
    >>It depends very much on the design and the use it's put to.

    >
    >Show me a framed site that has good usability (compared to a site that
    >doesn't use frames but similar amount of information/interaction), I
    >won't ask for "very good".
    >
    >

    Alan Wood's site "Compendium of Pesticide Common Names" has always
    seemed like an excellent example to me:

    http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_cn_frame.html




    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
     
    Jake, Dec 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Paul W Smith

    Rob McAninch Guest

    Jake>:
    > In message <>, Rob McAninch
    > <> writes


    >> Show me a framed site that has good usability (compared to a site that
    >> doesn't use frames but similar amount of information/interaction), I
    >> won't ask for "very good".
    >>
    >>

    > Alan Wood's site "Compendium of Pesticide Common Names" has always
    > seemed like an excellent example to me:
    >
    > http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_cn_frame.html


    I can't bookmark anything, or 'easily' reference a given entry. Two
    important and basic usability requirements for any web site;
    especially one of a reference style. Of course I can make a direct
    link to say:
    http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/acethion.html
    Or I try the 'no frames' link, but as soon as I navigate away I end
    up back in the frames.

    Consider:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/A.html

    For which there's also a framed version, but I can easily navigate
    with either method and choose to forget the framed version exists if
    I want, since it has the same inherent usability problems of any
    framed site.
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/frames.html

    I forgot this page earlier in the thread (dolt!):
    http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

    --
    Rob McAninch
    http://rock13.com
     
    Rob McAninch, Dec 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Paul W Smith

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Jake wrote:

    > In message <>, Rob McAninch
    > <> writes
    > >Jake>:
    > >> In message <>, Rob McAninch
    > >><> writes
    > >>>
    > >>> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard,
    > >>> if you take the time to do it.
    > >> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly is very easy
    > >>indeed.
    > >> I was interested in seeing what the poster had discovered that
    > >> wasn't generally known.

    Well. What isn't generally known about frames.
    That example you gave is not really a very good one. For example. In
    FireFox. If you make the text bigger, as a person with loe vision, such
    as myself would, by holding down the control key and pressing the +
    sign. You will see that it doesn't re-size properly. So you would need
    to scrole to read most of the content. If was not for the Meta Tags.
    That site would not even appear in the SE's. It doesn't even show the
    right frame in the source code. That is what the search bot sease when
    it looks at the code. So you get hardly any content. Also, I doubt very
    highly that a text only browser would be able to handle frames.
    For more details you may want to read the artical I wrote on the
    subject at:
    http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips1.html
    I hope this helps.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
     
    Chaddy2222, Dec 20, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul W Smith

    Alan Wood Guest

    Chaddy2222 wrote:

    > http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_cn_frame.html


    > That example you gave is not really a very good one. For example. In FireFox.
    > If you make the text bigger, by holding down the control key and pressing the +
    > sign. You will see that it doesn't re-size properly.


    I consider this to be a design flaw in Firefox - I.E. resizes the text
    in all frames simultaneously

    > If was not for the Meta Tags. That site would not even appear in the SE's.


    My site is thoroughly indexed by the search engines, because it is
    SE-friendly. I use links in <noframes> so that they can find all of
    the content, and I also provide a pesticide classification (not framed)
    that provides links to all of the data sheets.

    As I have said before, I would be happy to ditch the frames if I could
    find another way to provide the same functionality.

    --
    Alan Wood
    http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)
     
    Alan Wood, Dec 20, 2005
    #12
  13. Paul W Smith

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Alan Wood wrote:

    > Chaddy2222 wrote:
    >
    > > http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_cn_frame.html

    >
    > > That example you gave is not really a very good one. For example. In FireFox.
    > > If you make the text bigger, by holding down the control key and pressing the +
    > > sign. You will see that it doesn't re-size properly.

    >
    > I consider this to be a design flaw in Firefox - I.E. resizes the text
    > in all frames simultaneously

    Hmmm. Interesting point. I don't think the support for Frames in
    FireFox is overly fantastic anyway. A lot of framed based pages won't
    even work.

    >
    > > If was not for the Meta Tags. That site would not even appear in the SE's.

    >
    > My site is thoroughly indexed by the search engines, because it is
    > SE-friendly. I use links in <noframes> so that they can find all of
    > the content, and I also provide a pesticide classification (not framed)
    > that provides links to all of the data sheets.

    That's good.
    >
    > As I have said before, I would be happy to ditch the frames if I could
    > find another way to provide the same functionality.

    Hmmm. Maybe a solution useing CSS would work. Or a table useing a php
    include to update the navigation system.
    I would even suggest useing some sort of CMS, but you would need one
    that was customizable that validated properly.
    That was one thing I did just notice about your site. It validates.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
     
    Chaddy2222, Dec 20, 2005
    #13
  14. Paul W Smith

    Jake Guest

    In message <>, Rob McAninch
    <> writes
    >Jake>:
    >> In message <>, Rob McAninch
    >><> writes

    >
    >>> Show me a framed site that has good usability (compared to a site
    >>>that doesn't use frames but similar amount of
    >>>information/interaction), I won't ask for "very good".
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Alan Wood's site "Compendium of Pesticide Common Names" has always
    >>seemed like an excellent example to me:
    >> http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_cn_frame.html

    >
    >I can't bookmark anything, or 'easily' reference a given entry.


    2 things:

    (a) You can bookmark the context ...... if you're an IE user (and that's
    9 out of 10 visitors): 'Favorites' --> 'Add to Favorites'. Other (more
    recent) browsers don't consider this facility to be important enough to
    be worth implementing.

    (b) From a useability point of view, the bookmarking of a context on
    this site isn't really going to save you anything, is it?

    >Two important and basic usability requirements for any web site;
    >especially one of a reference style.


    As above.

    >Of course I can make a direct link to say:
    >http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/acethion.html


    Indeed.

    >Or I try the 'no frames' link, but as soon as I navigate away I end up
    >back in the frames.
    >
    >Consider:
    >http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/A.html
    >
    >For which there's also a framed version,


    Yes -- the frames version is much easier to use (even if there's no
    <!doctype> on the frameset page ;-)

    >but I can easily navigate with either method and choose to forget the
    >framed version exists if I want, since it has the same inherent
    >usability problems of any framed site.
    >http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/frames.html
    >
    >I forgot this page earlier in the thread (dolt!):
    >http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil


    You haven't this time -- but you have forgotten to warn people to take
    the batteries out of their bogosity meters before opening ;-)
    >


    Regards.
    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
     
    Jake, Dec 20, 2005
    #14
  15. Paul W Smith

    Jake Guest

    In message <>,
    Chaddy2222 <> writes
    >
    >Jake wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Rob McAninch
    >> <> writes
    >> >Jake>:
    >> >> In message <>, Rob McAninch
    >> >><> writes
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard,
    >> >>> if you take the time to do it.
    >> >> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly is very easy
    >> >>indeed.
    >> >> I was interested in seeing what the poster had discovered that
    >> >> wasn't generally known.

    >Well. What isn't generally known about frames.
    >That example you gave is not really a very good one. For example. In
    >FireFox. If you make the text bigger, as a person with loe vision, such
    >as myself would, by holding down the control key and pressing the +
    >sign. You will see that it doesn't re-size properly. So you would need
    >to scrole to read most of the content. If was not for the Meta Tags.
    >That site would not even appear in the SE's. It doesn't even show the
    >right frame in the source code. That is what the search bot sease when
    >it looks at the code. So you get hardly any content. Also, I doubt very
    >highly that a text only browser would be able to handle frames.


    As Alan has already addressed this point adequately, I'll refrain from
    doing so.

    (BTW. Look at a frames-based site in Lynx if you want to see how a
    text-only browser deals with one.)

    >For more details you may want to read the artical I wrote on the
    >subject at:
    >http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips1.html


    Well, that's really interesting.

    >I hope this helps.


    Certainly makes you think, doesn't it ;-)

    regards.


    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
     
    Jake, Dec 20, 2005
    #15
  16. Paul W Smith

    Rob McAninch Guest

    Jake>:
    > In message <>, Rob McAninch
    > <> writes
    >
    >> Jake>:


    >>> Alan Wood's site "Compendium of Pesticide Common Names" has always
    >>> seemed like an excellent example to me:
    >>> http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_cn_frame.html

    >>
    >> I can't bookmark anything, or 'easily' reference a given entry.

    >
    > (a) You can bookmark the context ...... if you're an IE user (and that's
    > 9 out of 10 visitors):


    I currently see about 85% IE users in my server logs. So your
    estimation may be close; but how many IE users are using IE because
    they have no choice (my visitors are mostly U.S. based) in a work or
    school environment? What happens if/when those environments make a
    decision to go with a non WinIE browser?

    With MacIE decommissioned and Mac dealing with Intel, Mac use will
    rise (and this will be a non-IE rise in visitors.

    > (b) From a useability point of view, the bookmarking of a context on
    > this site isn't really going to save you anything, is it?


    Yes, it would allow me to bookmark specific definitions. Of course I
    can't easily link to a specific definition even if I decided to
    browse your site with IE.

    >> I forgot this page earlier in the thread (dolt!):
    >> http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

    >
    > You haven't this time [...]


    Did you read anything on that page? The methods to redesigning to be
    more usable are in there. Mostly what it may amount to is a basic CMS.

    A couple ideas would be to preprocess your site with Perl or the
    like, essentially wrapping each definition page with the navigation
    before uploading. Though I don't know that I would load the entire
    index; perhaps just the current letter.

    Or you could have the server generate and cache those pages on the
    fly as they are requested, they can be cached for some predetermined
    length of time (to reduce wasted processing) and you could include a
    forced regeneration (or emptying of the cache) when you update a
    definition.

    In the end you would have 'traditional' pages without the frames and
    you still only have to update your index and add definition pages as
    you do currently.

    --
    Rob McAninch
    http://rock13.com
     
    Rob McAninch, Dec 21, 2005
    #16
  17. Paul W Smith

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Rob McAninch
    <> spouted in alt.html:

    > Did you read anything on that page?


    Don't waste your time, Rob. Jake loves frames, and won't hear anything
    against them - we've been over this many, many times.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    =====================================================
    Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
    http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
     
    Mark Parnell, Dec 21, 2005
    #17
  18. Paul W Smith

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    > Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Rob McAninch
    > <> spouted in alt.html:
    >
    > > Did you read anything on that page?

    >
    > Don't waste your time, Rob. Jake loves frames, and won't hear anything
    > against them - we've been over this many, many times.

    Hmmmmmmm. That's a bit of a worry. Considering Jakes willingness to
    make sites that are accessible.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

    >
    > --
    > Mark Parnell
    > =====================================================
    > Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
    > http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
     
    Chaddy2222, Dec 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Paul W Smith

    Jake Guest

    In message
    <43a9df92$0$14678$>, Mark
    Parnell <> writes
    >Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Rob McAninch
    ><> spouted in alt.html:
    >
    >> Did you read anything on that page?

    >
    >Don't waste your time, Rob. Jake loves frames, and won't hear anything
    >against them - we've been over this many, many times.
    >


    Wrong, my friend.

    Nowhere will you see me recommend frames for general use.

    (.... sits back and waits for MP to provide a reference to disprove that
    statement.)

    It's just that there's so many 'urban myths' out there that, when
    repeated enough times, take on the permanence of fact.

    Just trying to keep you honest.

    Regards.
    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
     
    Jake, Dec 22, 2005
    #19
  20. Paul W Smith

    Jake Guest

    In message <>,
    Chaddy2222 <> writes
    >
    >Mark Parnell wrote:
    >
    >> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Rob McAninch
    >> <> spouted in alt.html:
    >>
    >> > Did you read anything on that page?

    >>
    >> Don't waste your time, Rob. Jake loves frames, and won't hear anything
    >> against them - we've been over this many, many times.

    >Hmmmmmmm. That's a bit of a worry.


    Stop worrying.

    > Considering Jakes willingness to
    >make sites that are accessible.


    Actually, a well-written frames-based site won't give you any
    accessibility problems.

    (... sits back and waits for someone to prove me wrong ...)

    regards.

    >--
    >Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
    >
    >>
    >> --
    >> Mark Parnell
    >> =====================================================
    >> Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
    >> http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

    >


    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
     
    Jake, Dec 22, 2005
    #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. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    673
  2. xzzy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    641
  3. ck388
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    574
    ck388
    Sep 24, 2003
  4. Julius Mong
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    380
    Randy Webb
    May 10, 2004
  5. Stefan Mueller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    228
    Stefan Mueller
    Nov 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page