Google search box opening in a different frame

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Phillip Roncoroni, Jan 17, 2004.

  1. <!-- SiteSearch Google -->
    <FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search">
    <TABLE bgcolor="#FFFFFF" align="right"><tr><td>
    </td>
    <td>
    <INPUT TYPE=text name=q size=31 maxlength=255 value="">
    <INPUT type=submit name=btnG VALUE="Search">
    <font size=-1>
    <input type=hidden name=domains value="www.goodcowfilms.com"><br> <input
    type=radio name=sitesearch value="www.goodcowfilms.com" checked>
    search goodcowfilms.com with Google <br>
    </font>
    </td></tr></TABLE>
    </FORM>
    <!-- SiteSearch Google -->

    --

    How do I change that code to let the results open in a frame called "main"

    Thanks in advance.

    --

    goodcow
    goodcowfilms.com
    Phillip Roncoroni, Jan 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <B5dOb.7063$>,
    says...
    > <!-- SiteSearch Google -->
    > <FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search">
    >
    > How do I change that code to let the results open in a frame called "main"


    Did you do any searching for yourself?

    <FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search" target="main">

    Frames are so 1995.

    --
    Hywel I do not eat quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Phillip Roncoroni

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Phillip Roncoroni" <> wrote:

    ><!-- SiteSearch Google -->
    ><FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search">
    ><TABLE bgcolor="#FFFFFF" align="right"><tr><td>
    > </td>
    ><td>
    ><INPUT TYPE=text name=q size=31 maxlength=255 value="">
    ><INPUT type=submit name=btnG VALUE="Search">
    ><font size=-1>
    ><input type=hidden name=domains value="www.goodcowfilms.com"><br> <input
    >type=radio name=sitesearch value="www.goodcowfilms.com" checked>
    >search goodcowfilms.com with Google <br>
    ></font>
    ></td></tr></TABLE>
    ></FORM>
    ><!-- SiteSearch Google -->
    >
    >--
    >
    >How do I change that code to let the results open in a frame called "main"


    <FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search" target="main">

    But http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

    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, Jan 17, 2004
    #3
  4. "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Phillip Roncoroni" <> wrote:
    > <FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search" target="main">


    Thanks.

    >
    > But http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil


    Well, I don't think my frames are that bad:
    http://www.goodcowfilms.com/farm/index.html

    Sure, I'm not going to win any website design awards, but I like my unique
    style, and I think it works well. Besides, I hate Flash, and I don't know,
    nor want to rely on PHP, ASP, etc.

    --

    goodcow
    goodcowfilms.com


    >
    > 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/>
    Phillip Roncoroni, Jan 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Phillip Roncoroni

    Paul Furman Guest

    Phillip Roncoroni wrote:
    >
    > http://www.goodcowfilms.com/farm/index.html
    >
    > Sure, I'm not going to win any website design awards, but I like my unique
    > style, and I think it works well. Besides, I hate Flash, and I don't know,
    > nor want to rely on PHP, ASP, etc.


    It's maybe better than redundant navigation on multiple pages like I've
    been doing <g> but the text in your frame is jammed way over on the
    right edge especially in Mozilla it looks very uncomfortable.
    Paul Furman, Jan 17, 2004
    #5
  6. "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > Phillip Roncoroni wrote:
    > >
    > > http://www.goodcowfilms.com/farm/index.html
    > >
    > > Sure, I'm not going to win any website design awards, but I like my

    unique
    > > style, and I think it works well. Besides, I hate Flash, and I don't

    know,
    > > nor want to rely on PHP, ASP, etc.

    >
    > It's maybe better than redundant navigation on multiple pages like I've
    > been doing <g> but the text in your frame is jammed way over on the
    > right edge especially in Mozilla it looks very uncomfortable.
    >


    That would be the align right tag in the updates section, which I'm probably
    going to axe soon anyway. So that's just a (possibly) stupid design choice
    of my own.

    But the frame setup itself I like.

    --

    goodcow
    goodcowfilms.com
    Phillip Roncoroni, Jan 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Phillip Roncoroni

    Steve R. Guest

    Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...
    > But the frame setup itself I like.


    Phillip, I am also a supporter of framed websites provided they are done
    well, but have you tried viewing yours at 800x600 screen resolution,
    especially your 'enlarged' photographs ?

    It's impossible to see the whole of a photograph at once, because your
    header frame and menu frame intrude too much.

    You can overcome that by reducing the height of the top frame and reducing
    the width of the menu frame. Actually you could easily get rid of the top
    frame, by moving the 'stuff' there to the menu frame.
    Steve R., Jan 17, 2004
    #7
  8. "Steve R." <stevie_ritchie(NOSPAM)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:nFfOb.2206$...
    > Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...
    > > But the frame setup itself I like.

    >
    > Phillip, I am also a supporter of framed websites provided they are done
    > well, but have you tried viewing yours at 800x600 screen resolution,
    > especially your 'enlarged' photographs ?


    Well the site is definitely geared toward both 1024 (I run in 1152) and
    Broadband. What percentage of people still use 800? If I were a business, or
    trying to make a profit from the site, surely I'd take this more into
    consideration, but since the site is basically a multimedia intensive blog,
    a large game section, random archives for Google to index and people to
    stumble upon, and a Films section with an 800 friendly resolution, I guess I
    don't really care that much. (http://www.goodcowfilms.com/films/index.html)

    >
    > It's impossible to see the whole of a photograph at once, because your
    > header frame and menu frame intrude too much.


    If I reduced the menu frame buttons in size, then they'd be too small for
    1024, 1152, and 1280, IMO. It'd be hard to have a cow spot design with
    readable text in it at about half that size to accomodate 800x600.

    >
    > You can overcome that by reducing the height of the top frame and reducing
    > the width of the menu frame. Actually you could easily get rid of the top
    > frame, by moving the 'stuff' there to the menu frame.
    >
    >


    The goodcowfilms image which just takes you back to the splash page which
    divides the site into two sections could be moved into a spot that says,
    "home," I suppose, but a search bar in the menu frame would look pretty bad.
    As for removing the goodcowfilms image and having just the search bar there
    then, to reduce the space used by the top, that would be an option had my
    friend who designed the website not done the way it was done.

    The menu and header frames are seperate images, and then the main frame is
    an image which was specially sized to match the other two sets of spots, and
    repeat itself no matter what the resolution without looking messed up. So
    I'd have to re-do all those background images if I resized the top or left
    by any significant amount, because then those spots would be cut off, and
    wouldn't match the ones in the main frame.

    --

    goodcow
    goodcowfilms.com
    Phillip Roncoroni, Jan 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Quoth the raven named Phillip Roncoroni:

    > Well the site is definitely geared toward both 1024 (I run in 1152) and
    > Broadband. What percentage of people still use 800?


    You should stop thinking about screen resolution and start thinking of
    browser window size. Most people with high res large monitors will not
    be browsing in windows that are maximized. My resolution is currently
    1024x768 but my browser window is rarely as wide as 800 px. Makes for
    more comfortable reading. Let your visitor be in control.

    http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 17, 2004
    #9
  10. Phillip Roncoroni

    Steve R. Guest

    Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...
    > What percentage of people still use 800?


    The stats here ...
    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
    show 44% using 800x600 in July 2003.

    > If I reduced the menu frame buttons in size, then they'd be too small for
    > 1024, 1152, and 1280,


    They wouldn't, just look at some professional websites with very small text
    or 'button' menu-links. I'm using 1024x768 and they *appear* too big right
    now. They don't need to be that big.

    > As for removing the goodcowfilms image and having just the search bar

    there
    > then, to reduce the space used by the top, that would be an option had my
    > friend who designed the website not done the way it was done.


    Well put them in line then, not on top of each other. That will make the
    top frame smaller.
    Steve R., Jan 17, 2004
    #10
  11. Toby A Inkster, Jan 18, 2004
    #11
    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. =?Utf-8?B?TGFrc2htaSBOYXJheWFuYW4uUg==?=

    Google search result like site search!! How?

    =?Utf-8?B?TGFrc2htaSBOYXJheWFuYW4uUg==?=, May 5, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    658
    Lucas Tam
    May 6, 2005
  2. ©®
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    536
  3. Chris K.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    726
    Chris K.
    Jun 8, 2008
  4. Arvin Portlock
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    276
    Arvin Portlock
    Jul 12, 2004
  5. Rob Gordon

    Breaking a frame from a different frame

    Rob Gordon, Oct 17, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    135
    Rob Gordon
    Oct 17, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page