Google search box opening in a different frame

[Phillip Roncoroni]

<!-- 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 -->

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

<!-- 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.

 

[Steve Pugh]

<!-- 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 -->

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

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

Steve

 

[Phillip Roncoroni]

<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.

 

[Paul Furman]

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.

 

[Phillip Roncoroni]

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.

 

[Steve R.]

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.

 

[Phillip Roncoroni]

Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...

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.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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

 

[Steve R.]

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.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Phillip Roncoroni wrote in message ...

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

I provide IT support for a living and there are still people who use
640x480 ***by choice***!