need help using javascript to target a frame!

Discussion in 'HTML' started by TheKeith, Jun 25, 2003.

  1. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    First off, please excuse the crossposting--I really need an answer quickly.

    I have a decent amount of experience with html but not javascript. Currently
    I'm using dreamweaver to do a photo gallery where I have a whole bunch of
    thumbnail pics within an iframe. These thumnail pics are to swap an image in
    the parent frame with whichever thumbnail was clicked. I assigned a name to
    the pic in the parent frame which is to get replaced (i.e. "viewer") and I'm
    using dreamweaver's built-in js code to accomplish the swap. Here is an
    example of the code that dreamweaver generated:

    <a href="#" onClick="MM_swapImage('viewer','','buildingcorner.jpg',0)"><img
    src="buildingcorner.jpg" name="Image1" width="142" height="100" border=0
    id="Image1"></a>

    the swapimage refers to a function in the head section of the page, but I
    don't think there is anything wrong with this as I've used it before without
    any problems, but never with frames involved. I did manually change the
    section within the parenthesis since dreamweaver doesn't seem to be able to
    target other frames. My question is basically, how can I make this code
    work. I tried modifying it a bit, like 'parent.viewer', but that did
    nothing. What can I do to make this work--help would be greatly
    appreciated--thanks.

    Keith

    kegepet
    at
    nyc dot
    rr dot
    com
     
    TheKeith, Jun 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. TheKeith

    brucie Guest

    brucie, Jun 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good design
    purpose for the site I'm doing. I find pop-up windows far more evil and
    annoying and every pretentious piece of shit site under the sun uses them in
    some form or another. If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
    then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time, like
    flash and stuff? Are they not evil?

    Anyway, here is what I'm working on (not finished)--maybe someone can do a
    view source and give me some answers.

    http://www.kworks.us/photography/




    "brucie" <> wrote in message
    news:bdbhm2$oh3qm$...
    > In post <>
    > TheKeith said...
    >
    > > I have a whole bunch of thumbnail pics within an iframe.

    >
    > iframes are just as evil as frames
    >
    > http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzovic/tom/web/frames.html
    > http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
    >
    > > <a href="#"

    >
    > a fragment identifier separator isn't going to do anything for people
    > without JS.
    >
    > f'ups alt.html
    >
    > --
    > brucie a. blackford. 25/June/2003 05:03:59 pm kilo.
    > http://loser.brucies.com/
     
    TheKeith, Jun 25, 2003
    #3
  4. TheKeith

    DU Guest

    TheKeith wrote:
    > I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good design
    > purpose for the site I'm doing.


    Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the world
    would you want or need to do that?


    I find pop-up windows far more evil and
    > annoying and every pretentious piece of shit site under the sun uses them in
    > some form or another.


    I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do not
    filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
    to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
    killer software.

    If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
    > then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time, like
    > flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
    >


    If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
    better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
    Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
    between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective either.
    Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
    manners.
    Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for no
    good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.

    > Anyway, here is what I'm working on (not finished)--maybe someone can do a
    > view source and give me some answers.
    >


    1- Avoid frames and iframes: there is absolutely nothing in your webpage
    which justifies the recourse to frames and iframe
    2- use valid markup code and validate your markup code
    3- avoid using tables (nested tables are even worse) for layout and
    positioning purposes: use tables for tabular data
    4- Start reading FAQs (technical ones)
    5- Open your mind and just stop claiming you have good experience with
    HTML. Throughout history, the human spirit always worked like a parachute.
    6- Do not use javascript functions that you do not understand

    > http://www.kworks.us/photography/
    >
    >


    Brucie replied in an adequate manner to you. Whether you are receptive
    to his opinion is up to you. A wide majority of experts in webdesign do
    not recommend usage of frames as they imply implementation burden and
    difficulties impossible to overcome by normal means. Brucie gave you
    links to start reading. How many more links, articles, columns more do
    you need? From how many sources, from which sources? Microsoft MSDN?
    Netscape DevEdge? WDG? J. Nielsen?
    Multi-documents in a webpage is deprecated in more advanced and recent
    DTDs: that's not an opinion but an established fact written in W3C TRs.

    Don't cross-post if you can not justify cross-posting. Stop top-posting.
    Read the FAQs.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/

    >
    >
    > "brucie" <> wrote in message
    > news:bdbhm2$oh3qm$...
    >
    >>In post <>
    >>TheKeith said...
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have a whole bunch of thumbnail pics within an iframe.

    >>
    >>iframes are just as evil as frames
    >>
    >>http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    >>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzovic/tom/web/frames.html
    >>http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
    >>
    >>
    >>><a href="#"

    >>
    >>a fragment identifier separator isn't going to do anything for people
    >>without JS.
    >>
    >>f'ups alt.html
    >>
    >>--
    >>brucie a. blackford. 25/June/2003 05:03:59 pm kilo.
    >>http://loser.brucies.com/

    >
    >
    >
     
    DU, Jun 25, 2003
    #4
  5. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "DU" <> wrote in message
    news:bdcmfg$cnj$...
    > TheKeith wrote:
    > > I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good design
    > > purpose for the site I'm doing.

    >
    > Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the world
    > would you want or need to do that?


    just an easy way of eliminating scrollbars, which when I'm done with the
    page, will have an evident purpose.



    > I find pop-up windows far more evil and
    > > annoying and every pretentious piece of shit site under the sun uses

    them in
    > > some form or another.

    >
    > I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do not
    > filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
    > to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
    > killer software.


    of course, the unrequested ones are obvious impositions, but I was actually
    talking about the sites that have "legitimate" ues for pop-up, such as for
    design purposes. These, I believe are far worse than frames, since they are
    opening another window altogether. At least frames keep it within a single
    window.


    > If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
    > > then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time,

    like
    > > flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
    > >

    >
    > If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
    > better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
    > Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
    > between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective either.
    > Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
    > manners.


    my point was that neither flash nor frames are inherently evil, and I'm a
    bit tired of the frames are evil bs. If a designer wants to use them for
    some specific reason and not doing so in an intrusive way, then there's
    nothing wrong with that, and you shouldn't presume to know what qualifies as
    good design versus bad design--who are you? I didn't post my initial message
    to get people's opinion about my use of frames, I was asking about how to do
    a very specific thing.


    > Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for no
    > good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.


    this is a legitimate cross-posting--this is what cross-posting is meant for.
    I posted the message to applicable groups only. Top-posting I couldn't care
    less about. If I felt a need to reply to the individual parts of the above
    message, I would have, but I didn't. You can killfile me if you want, in
    fact, I wish you would. I don't need your design advice nor your how posting
    to the ng's advice, seeing as I've been doing it for close to ten years now.


    > > Anyway, here is what I'm working on (not finished)--maybe someone can do

    a
    > > view source and give me some answers.



    > 1- Avoid frames and iframes: there is absolutely nothing in your webpage
    > which justifies the recourse to frames and iframe


    page is not done.


    > 2- use valid markup code and validate your markup code
    > 3- avoid using tables (nested tables are even worse) for layout and
    > positioning purposes: use tables for tabular data


    why? This makes no sense at all.

    > 4- Start reading FAQs (technical ones)
    > 5- Open your mind and just stop claiming you have good experience with
    > HTML. Throughout history, the human spirit always worked like a parachute.
    > 6- Do not use javascript functions that you do not understand


    that's what dreamweaver is good for--I don't need to understand what it does
    necessarily. Just like I don't need to understand how to develop games in
    order to play them or how to write applications like photoshop in order to
    use them.

    I think someone else needs to open their mind.

    > > http://www.kworks.us/photography/
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Brucie replied in an adequate manner to you. Whether you are receptive
    > to his opinion is up to you. A wide majority of experts in webdesign do
    > not recommend usage of frames as they imply implementation burden and
    > difficulties impossible to overcome by normal means. Brucie gave you
    > links to start reading. How many more links, articles, columns more do
    > you need? From how many sources, from which sources? Microsoft MSDN?
    > Netscape DevEdge? WDG? J. Nielsen?
    > Multi-documents in a webpage is deprecated in more advanced and recent
    > DTDs: that's not an opinion but an established fact written in W3C TRs.
    >
    > Don't cross-post if you can not justify cross-posting. Stop top-posting.
    > Read the FAQs.
    >
    > DU
    > --
    > Javascript and Browser bugs:
    > http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > "brucie" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bdbhm2$oh3qm$...
    > >
    > >>In post <>
    > >>TheKeith said...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>I have a whole bunch of thumbnail pics within an iframe.
    > >>
    > >>iframes are just as evil as frames
    > >>
    > >>http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
    > >>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzovic/tom/web/frames.html
    > >>http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>><a href="#"
    > >>
    > >>a fragment identifier separator isn't going to do anything for people
    > >>without JS.
    > >>
    > >>f'ups alt.html
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >>brucie a. blackford. 25/June/2003 05:03:59 pm kilo.
    > >>http://loser.brucies.com/

    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
     
    TheKeith, Jun 25, 2003
    #5
  6. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "DU" <> wrote in message
    news:bdcs4l$ef1$...
    > TheKeith wrote:
    > > "DU" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bdcmfg$cnj$...
    > >
    > >>TheKeith wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good

    design
    > >>>purpose for the site I'm doing.
    > >>
    > >>Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the world
    > >>would you want or need to do that?

    > >
    > >
    > > just an easy way of eliminating scrollbars, which when I'm done with the
    > > page, will have an evident purpose.
    > >

    >
    > If content overflows window inner viewport dimensions, then you want
    > your page to clip content. That is what you propose and request here.
    > From an usability and accessibility perspective, your design is
    > anti-user and anti-accessibility.
    > What's inherently wrong with scrollbars? Please elaborate.
    > Don't scrollbars visually notify users that some of the content
    > overflows the window dimensions? Don't they allow users to access and
    > reach clipped content? Are they a standard fallback mechanism promoting
    > usability and accessibility?


    I don't want any content clipped--it will hurt my design. This way, you will
    be forced to have the window opened to at least certain minimum dimensions
    so that all I want visible on the screen at one time is.



    > >>I find pop-up windows far more evil and
    > >>
    > >>>annoying and every pretentious piece of shit site under the sun uses

    > >
    > > them in
    > >
    > >>>some form or another.
    > >>
    > >>I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do not
    > >>filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
    > >>to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
    > >>killer software.

    > >
    > >
    > > of course, the unrequested ones are obvious impositions, but

    >
    > ... but you did not make any distinction when you - only you - brought
    > up the issue of popup and started condemning popups altogether. You
    > reproached to Brucie what you actually did with the issue of popups: no
    > relativity, no demonstration, no explanation of arguments from an
    > usability perspective, no concrete case on which to discuss such issue.
    >
    >
    > I was actually
    > > talking about the sites that have "legitimate" ues for pop-up, such as

    for
    > > design purposes. These, I believe are far worse than frames, since they

    are
    > > opening another window altogether.

    >
    > If the design meets implementation and requirement specs, then why do
    > you denigrate these?


    precisely



    Your arguments are illogical here. And again, your
    > comparison does not serve any concrete discussion regarding your initial
    > post about your webpage.
    > Shouting frames can be a good design decision still does not justify the
    > use of frames in *your* webpage. Discussing popups has nothing,
    > absolutely nothing to do with the use of frames in your page.


    just like imparting your two-cents about frames has nothing to do with my
    initial post, ok mr. newsgroup etiquette who made no mention of using the
    "OT:" in the subject line.



    > At least frames keep it within a single
    > > window.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
    > >>
    > >>>then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time,

    > >
    > > like
    > >
    > >>>flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
    > >>better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
    > >>Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
    > >>between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective either.
    > >>Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
    > >>manners.

    > >
    > >
    > > my point was that neither flash nor frames are inherently evil, and I'm

    a
    > > bit tired of the frames are evil bs. If a designer wants to use them for
    > > some specific reason and not doing so in an intrusive way, then there's
    > > nothing wrong with that, and you shouldn't presume to know what

    qualifies as
    > > good design versus bad design--who are you?

    >
    > I claim and repeat loud and clear that there is nothing in your webpage
    > that justifies a frameset for a single frame with a iframe with nested
    > tables across all over. Now, it's up to you to proceed from that like a
    > grown up.


    let's say for example I wanted to create a web page without standard
    scrollbars and within it, to create a 750x400 size block with scrollable
    thumbnails in a left column and a viewer in the right. Which way would you
    go about doing it?


    > I didn't post my initial message
    > > to get people's opinion about my use of frames, I was asking about how

    to do
    > > a very specific thing.
    > >

    >
    > No. You cross-posted an assistance request to several newsgroups
    > regarding an undefined javascript function...


    Not knowing javascript, I mistakenly didn't include the function in my
    post--SORRY!

    regarding an
    > unspecified webpage.


    Because my web page hadn't been up yet.


    > >>Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for no
    > >>good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.

    > >
    > >
    > > this is a legitimate cross-posting

    >
    > If so, then why did you start with excuses? Did you post this:
    > "First off, please excuse the crossposting--I really need an answer
    > quickly."


    because I know the newsgroups are full of shitheads, whose opinions I really
    didn't want to hear ;-)



    > What is in your mind the relation between cross-posting to 5 newsgroups
    > and getting a quick answer? Would cross-posting to 20 newsgroups get you
    > faster answers?


    yes as a matter of fact.


    Would you like to get many quick but wrong solution
    > proposals? Would that fit your expectations?


    better than getting the replies of anal and utterly unhelpful assholes, who
    get their kicks out of imposing their self-righteous opinions on those they
    deem lesser than they are.
     
    TheKeith, Jun 25, 2003
    #6
  7. TheKeith

    brucie Guest

    brucie, Jun 25, 2003
    #7
  8. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "DU" <> wrote in message
    news:bdd2tf$h4r$...
    > TheKeith wrote:
    > > "DU" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bdcs4l$ef1$...
    > >
    > >>TheKeith wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>"DU" <> wrote in message
    > >>>news:bdcmfg$cnj$...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>TheKeith wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good

    > >
    > > design
    > >
    > >>>>>purpose for the site I'm doing.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the

    world
    > >>>>would you want or need to do that?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>just an easy way of eliminating scrollbars, which when I'm done with

    the
    > >>>page, will have an evident purpose.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>If content overflows window inner viewport dimensions, then you want
    > >>your page to clip content. That is what you propose and request here.
    > >> From an usability and accessibility perspective, your design is
    > >>anti-user and anti-accessibility.
    > >>What's inherently wrong with scrollbars? Please elaborate.
    > >>Don't scrollbars visually notify users that some of the content
    > >>overflows the window dimensions? Don't they allow users to access and
    > >>reach clipped content? Are they a standard fallback mechanism promoting
    > >>usability and accessibility?

    > >
    > >
    > > I don't want any content clipped--it will hurt my design.

    >
    > But if it is, then content will not be accessible because scrollbars
    > will have been removed by your code, because of your requirements,
    > because of your will.


    no content will be inaccessible, provided the user's browser is open enough
    to allow for content 750 pixels wide by 400 pixels high--perfectly
    reasonable in my book, as I don't know anyone who doesn't have their screen
    res set to at least 800x600, and if you don't, chances are you're not gonna
    be able to handle a lot of other sites very well either.



    > This way, you will
    > > be forced to have the window opened to at least certain minimum

    dimensions
    > > so that all I want visible on the screen at one time is.
    > >

    >
    > This way, you will force your visitors to comply with undefined,
    > unspecified dimension requirements: no one can claim you have a site
    > promoting usability and content accessibility.


    are you related to martha stewart


    > You still have not answered me on 4 questions. What's inherently wrong
    > with scrollbars?


    I never said anything was wrong with scrollbars did I? No, in fact, I'm
    using them.


    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>>>I find pop-up windows far more evil and
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>annoying and every pretentious piece of shit site under the sun uses
    > >>>
    > >>>them in
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>>some form or another.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do

    not
    > >>>>filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
    > >>>>to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
    > >>>>killer software.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>of course, the unrequested ones are obvious impositions, but
    > >>
    > >>... but you did not make any distinction when you - only you - brought
    > >>up the issue of popup and started condemning popups altogether. You
    > >>reproached to Brucie what you actually did with the issue of popups: no
    > >>relativity, no demonstration, no explanation of arguments from an
    > >>usability perspective, no concrete case on which to discuss such issue.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>I was actually
    > >>
    > >>>talking about the sites that have "legitimate" ues for pop-up, such as

    > >
    > > for
    > >
    > >>>design purposes. These, I believe are far worse than frames, since they

    > >
    > > are
    > >
    > >>>opening another window altogether.
    > >>
    > >>If the design meets implementation and requirement specs, then why do
    > >>you denigrate these?

    > >
    > >
    > > precisely
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Your arguments are illogical here. And again, your
    > >
    > >>comparison does not serve any concrete discussion regarding your initial
    > >>post about your webpage.
    > >>Shouting frames can be a good design decision still does not justify the
    > >>use of frames in *your* webpage. Discussing popups has nothing,
    > >>absolutely nothing to do with the use of frames in your page.

    > >
    > >
    > > just like imparting your two-cents about frames has nothing to do with

    my
    > > initial post, ok mr. newsgroup etiquette who made no mention of using

    the
    > > "OT:" in the subject line.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > My 2 cents opinion was about your frameset having a single frame
    > embedding an iframe with nested tables across and all over: that was my
    > nr 1 issue with you.
    >
    > The cross-posting, popup, scrollbars, top-posting (and now flash) issues
    > were secondary and were all initially brought up
    > by you,
    > only by you,
    > because of you.


    and the acceptability of using frames was all secondary too, so why don't
    you go annoy brucie.



    > Believe me: I really do not like etiquette discussions. I know some
    > others are much more stiff and rigid on such. But often poor posting
    > manners reveal a poor webpage/website designer as well: if he can't
    > introduce and present the issues involved in a single post, how and why
    > would you expect him to do better with a website? If a poster has
    > like-it-or-not manners in a newsgroup, why would you expect him to treat
    > his website visitors any better?


    you *are* related to martha stewart!



    > >>At least frames keep it within a single
    > >>
    > >>>window.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the

    time,
    > >>>
    > >>>like
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>>flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
    > >>>>better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
    > >>>>Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
    > >>>>between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective

    either.
    > >>>>Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
    > >>>>manners.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>my point was that neither flash nor frames are inherently evil, and I'm

    > >
    > > a
    > >
    > >>>bit tired of the frames are evil bs. If a designer wants to use them

    for
    > >>>some specific reason and not doing so in an intrusive way, then there's
    > >>>nothing wrong with that, and you shouldn't presume to know what

    > >
    > > qualifies as
    > >
    > >>>good design versus bad design--who are you?
    > >>
    > >>I claim and repeat loud and clear that there is nothing in your webpage
    > >>that justifies a frameset for a single frame with a iframe with nested
    > >>tables across all over. Now, it's up to you to proceed from that like a
    > >>grown up.

    > >
    > >
    > > let's say for example I wanted to create a web page without standard
    > > scrollbars and within it, to create a 750x400 size block with scrollable
    > > thumbnails in a left column and a viewer in the right. Which way would

    you
    > > go about doing it?
    > >

    >
    > That should have been your initial post. A clear concise description of
    > your webpage situation with the least number of rigid constraining
    > requirements and posted in alt.html newsgroup only. We're back to square
    > 1 in "how to post in newsgroup" FAQ here.


    Actually what I did was simpler. I posted a little piece of dreamweaver's
    js, in the hopes that someone in the applicable ng's I posted to, would be
    able to tell me, "change this..." and it would have been done with, but no,
    people like you have to complicate matters and police newsgroups, trying to
    force everyone into compliance with what they consider to be proper.



    > Here I don't see why scrollbars should not appear if
    > content overflows windows inner viewport dimensions. As far as I can
    > understand you, the 750x400 size block you're referring to is your
    > document inner dimensions.
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >>I didn't post my initial message
    > >>
    > >>>to get people's opinion about my use of frames, I was asking about how

    > >
    > > to do
    > >
    > >>>a very specific thing.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>No. You cross-posted an assistance request to several newsgroups
    > >>regarding an undefined javascript function...

    > >
    > >
    > > Not knowing javascript, I mistakenly didn't include the function in my
    > > post--SORRY!
    > >
    > > regarding an
    > >
    > >>unspecified webpage.

    > >
    > >
    > > Because my web page hadn't been up yet.
    > >

    >
    > Then maybe it would have been a good idea to post (cross-post or not -
    > that's another issue) your message of urgent assistance request once
    > your web page was up.
    > Maybe your expectations from cross-posting were unrealistic. Maybe you
    > expected a lot from a lot of people.
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >>>>Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for

    no
    > >>>>good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>this is a legitimate cross-posting
    > >>
    > >>If so, then why did you start with excuses? Did you post this:
    > >>"First off, please excuse the crossposting--I really need an answer
    > >>quickly."

    > >
    > >
    > > because I know the newsgroups are full of shitheads, whose opinions I

    really
    > > didn't want to hear ;-)
    > >

    >
    > If your cross-posting was legitimate, then why excuse yourself? Your
    > first sentence stroke me as inconsequent, incoherent, self-defeating.
    > The reason you bring up is most likely not the right one either: I think
    > it has all to do with you not knowing when cross-posting is adequate,
    > suitable and justified.


    and just when is crossposting justified, if not for something like this?


    > >>What is in your mind the relation between cross-posting to 5 newsgroups
    > >>and getting a quick answer? Would cross-posting to 20 newsgroups get you
    > >>faster answers?

    > >
    > >
    > > yes as a matter of fact.
    > >
    > >
    > > Would you like to get many quick but wrong solution
    > >
    > >>proposals? Would that fit your expectations?

    > >
    > >
    > > better than getting the replies of anal and utterly unhelpful assholes,

    who
    > > get their kicks out of imposing their self-righteous opinions on those

    they
    > > deem lesser than they are.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Bottom posting is not a preference in this newsgroup (and in many
    > newsgroups): it's a requirement. So, you should bring your
    > like-it-or-not arguments elsewhere.


    actually, seeing as no one owns the newgroups, and seeing as how alt.html is
    an unmoderated one, you can take *your* arguments elsewhere.


    > People willing to read and give their best to assist others are
    > volunteers. Stop perceiving newsgroups like a 24 hour help desk. Stop
    > expecting to be spoon-fed: read the FAQs and open up your mind a bit.


    I know--what's the sense of seeking help on a certain topic in newsgroups
    that specialize in that topic? What was I thinking?
     
    TheKeith, Jun 25, 2003
    #8
  9. TheKeith

    Disco Guest

    TheKeith wrote:
    > I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good


    Not sure if you want cross browser compatibility, I dont suppose you do, so
    here is what you need to do....


    function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
    parent.document.all.viewer.src=pIMG;
    }



    <img src="buildingcorner.jpe"
    onClick="showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage('buildingcorner.jpe')"
    width="142" height="100" style="cursor:hand">

    no need to put the onClick on the <A>... might as well simply put it on the
    <IMG>

    Also...
    Its a pretty bad idea to put you thumbs on this frame when all they are are
    the original larger image just resized. You should shrink them down a bit.
    At the moment, on a slow connect, your page will take a long time to load.
     
    Disco, Jun 25, 2003
    #9
  10. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "Disco" <> wrote in message
    news:UgpKa.316$...
    > TheKeith wrote:
    > > I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good

    >
    > Not sure if you want cross browser compatibility, I dont suppose you do,

    so
    > here is what you need to do....


    Oh I missed this part of your post for some reason. It would be nice if this
    worked in mozilla/netscape (newer versions are fine)--is there anything I
    can do to make that happen?


    >
    >
    > function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
    > parent.document.all.viewer.src=pIMG;
    > }
    >
    >
    >
    > <img src="buildingcorner.jpe"
    > onClick="showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage('buildingcorner.jpe')"
    > width="142" height="100" style="cursor:hand">
    >
    > no need to put the onClick on the <A>... might as well simply put it on

    the
    > <IMG>
    >
    > Also...
    > Its a pretty bad idea to put you thumbs on this frame when all they are

    are
    > the original larger image just resized. You should shrink them down a

    bit.
    > At the moment, on a slow connect, your page will take a long time to load.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    TheKeith, Jun 26, 2003
    #10
  11. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Disco" <>
    Newsgroups: alt.html
    Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:22 PM
    Subject: Re: need help using javascript to target a frame!


    > TheKeith wrote:
    > > I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good

    >
    > Not sure if you want cross browser compatibility, I dont suppose you do,

    so
    > here is what you need to do....
    >
    >
    > function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
    > parent.document.all.viewer.src=pIMG;
    > }
    >
    >
    >
    > <img src="buildingcorner.jpe"
    > onClick="showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage('buildingcorner.jpe')"
    > width="142" height="100" style="cursor:hand">
    >
    > no need to put the onClick on the <A>... might as well simply put it on

    the
    > <IMG>


    THANKS! It works! I even gave you credit for it. BTW, do you have any idea
    why it keeps nudging the frame border over a little depending on whether
    it's a horizontal or vertical pic--I can't figure out why it's doing this. I
    tried changing the table dimensions to give the right column a bit more
    room, but that doesn't really work. Oh well.


    >
    > Also...
    > Its a pretty bad idea to put you thumbs on this frame when all they are

    are
    > the original larger image just resized. You should shrink them down a

    bit.
    > At the moment, on a slow connect, your page will take a long time to load.


    yeah, normally I would have just created separate images for the thumbs, but
    I got a little lazy. I'll probably change that.

    Thanks again!
     
    TheKeith, Jun 26, 2003
    #11
  12. TheKeith

    Disco Guest

    TheKeith wrote:

    > THANKS! It works!

    You are welcome. I am glad it works for you.


    > I even gave you credit for it.

    Please do not give me credit for this. I would not have this code on my
    sites, or any of the sites I am associated with. The only reason I gave it
    to you is because that is what you asked for.
     
    Disco, Jun 26, 2003
    #12
  13. TheKeith

    Disco Guest

    TheKeith wrote:
    >> Not sure if you want cross browser compatibility, I dont suppose you
    >> do, so here is what you need to do....


    >
    > Oh I missed this part of your post for some reason. It would be nice
    > if this worked in mozilla/netscape (newer versions are fine)--is
    > there anything I can do to make that happen?



    Try this....
    function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
    parent.document.forms['whollyfreakinfreak'].viewer.src=pIMG;
    }


    .... or this...

    function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
    parent.document.forms[0].viewer.src=pIMG;
    }

    and surround your table with this....


    <form name="whollyfreakinfreak" id="whollyfreakinfreak"
    splat="but-why-mummy">
    <freakin table goes here />
    </form>
     
    Disco, Jun 26, 2003
    #13
  14. TheKeith

    rf Guest

    "Disco" <> wrote in message
    news:h4qKa.322$...
    > TheKeith wrote:
    >
    > > I even gave you credit for it.

    > Please do not give me credit for this. I would not have this code on my
    > sites, or any of the sites I am associated with. The only reason I gave

    it
    > to you is because that is what you asked for.


    Well said.

    Of course your solution does not work in Mozilla :)

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jun 26, 2003
    #14
  15. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "Disco" <> wrote in message
    news:S8qKa.323$...
    > TheKeith wrote:
    > >> Not sure if you want cross browser compatibility, I dont suppose you
    > >> do, so here is what you need to do....

    >
    > >
    > > Oh I missed this part of your post for some reason. It would be nice
    > > if this worked in mozilla/netscape (newer versions are fine)--is
    > > there anything I can do to make that happen?

    >
    >
    > Try this....
    > function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
    > parent.document.forms['whollyfreakinfreak'].viewer.src=pIMG;
    > }
    >
    >
    > ... or this...
    >
    > function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
    > parent.document.forms[0].viewer.src=pIMG;
    > }
    >
    > and surround your table with this....
    >
    >
    > <form name="whollyfreakinfreak" id="whollyfreakinfreak"
    > splat="but-why-mummy">
    > <freakin table goes here />
    > </form>


    this may sound strange to you, but before I read this, I was playing around
    to see if I could get it to work in mozilla. I simply removed the "all" in
    "parent.document.all.viewer" in your function and now it works in mozilla.
    Go figure.
     
    TheKeith, Jun 26, 2003
    #15
  16. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:9hqKa.80$...
    >
    > "Disco" <> wrote in message
    > news:h4qKa.322$...
    > > TheKeith wrote:
    > >
    > > > I even gave you credit for it.

    > > Please do not give me credit for this. I would not have this code on my
    > > sites, or any of the sites I am associated with. The only reason I gave

    > it
    > > to you is because that is what you asked for.

    >
    > Well said.
    >
    > Of course your solution does not work in Mozilla :)


    yeah I removed the "all" in his function and now it works in mozilla (the
    latest version anyway).

    > Cheers
    > Richard.
    >
    >
     
    TheKeith, Jun 26, 2003
    #16
  17. TheKeith

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <bddeg3$lec$>,
    says...
    > A good web designer - not even a professional one - would not agree with
    > your design policy. A good web designer would always look for
    > accessibility and usability of his site and always provide reasonable
    > fallback mechanisms.


    Well that is one way of looking at it. Another way is that a
    professional web designer keeps the target audience in mind when
    designing a site. Giving them what ever it takes to get then to buy or
    be branded. Yes, "everyone" might not be able to see your site, but your
    target audience will. And everyone does not buy your product. But your
    target audience does. Keep them in mind.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Jun 26, 2003
    #17
  18. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:15rKa.106$...
    >
    > "TheKeith" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "rf" <> wrote in message
    > > news:9hqKa.80$...
    > > >

    >
    > > > Of course your solution does not work in Mozilla :)

    > >
    > > yeah I removed the "all" in his function and now it works in mozilla

    (the
    > > latest version anyway).

    >
    > Fine.
    >
    > I noticed something else. Those thumbnails are not thumbnails. They are

    the
    > full sized image resized in the browser. This is just not done. Resize

    them
    > in your photo editor and make them into real thumbnails. Each one should

    be
    > about 1 or 2K big, not the 30K average they are now.
    >
    > That single page comes in at 540K. I assume when you add some more images

    it
    > will grow accordingly.
    >
    > You have just eliminated from your list of possible viewers anybody who is
    > on a dial up connection.


    yeah I know, as I said to Disco, normally I would have made a separate set
    of images, but I whipped up this site very quickly--it's not nearly
    complete. I will create low-res versions of all the images.
     
    TheKeith, Jun 26, 2003
    #18
  19. TheKeith

    DU Guest

    Whitecrest wrote:
    > In article <bddeg3$lec$>,
    > says...
    >
    >>A good web designer - not even a professional one - would not agree with
    >>your design policy. A good web designer would always look for
    >>accessibility and usability of his site and always provide reasonable
    >>fallback mechanisms.

    >
    >
    > Well that is one way of looking at it. Another way is that a
    > professional web designer keeps the target audience in mind when
    > designing a site. Giving them what ever it takes to get then to buy or
    > be branded. Yes, "everyone" might not be able to see your site, but your
    > target audience will. And everyone does not buy your product. But your
    > target audience does. Keep them in mind.
    >


    When TheKeith spends dedicated efforts in trying to remove scrollbars
    and what it implies in terms of usability and accessibility to content,
    then he actively and purposely want to discriminate. That is what his
    frameset hack was about. Nothing else.
    So the normal question to followup with was what's inherently wrong with
    scrollbars anyway? Why would you want to prevent your users from using
    scrollbars when their presence would be needed to access clipped
    overflowed content?

    >Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the world
    >> would you want or need to do that?

    just an easy way of eliminating scrollbars

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
     
    DU, Jun 26, 2003
    #19
  20. TheKeith

    TheKeith Guest

    "DU" <> wrote in message
    news:bddilb$nll$...
    > Whitecrest wrote:
    > > In article <bddeg3$lec$>,
    > > says...
    > >
    > >>A good web designer - not even a professional one - would not agree with
    > >>your design policy. A good web designer would always look for
    > >>accessibility and usability of his site and always provide reasonable
    > >>fallback mechanisms.

    > >
    > >
    > > Well that is one way of looking at it. Another way is that a
    > > professional web designer keeps the target audience in mind when
    > > designing a site. Giving them what ever it takes to get then to buy or
    > > be branded. Yes, "everyone" might not be able to see your site, but your
    > > target audience will. And everyone does not buy your product. But your
    > > target audience does. Keep them in mind.
    > >

    >
    > When TheKeith spends dedicated efforts in trying to remove scrollbars
    > and what it implies in terms of usability and accessibility to content,
    > then he actively and purposely want to discriminate. That is what his
    > frameset hack was about. Nothing else.
    > So the normal question to followup with was what's inherently wrong with
    > scrollbars anyway? Why would you want to prevent your users from using
    > scrollbars when their presence would be needed to access clipped
    > overflowed content?


    no my intentions are not to discriminate. My goal is to have all the
    contents of one particular page in view at one time; this is a design
    choice, be it an unconventional one. For what I have planned (which is
    likely to change), I found scrollbars to be clumsy and in conflict with my
    design goal. If this means that people using wireless devices and screen
    readers will have trouble viewing it, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to
    make, especially since my site will be visually-oriented with lots of flash
    and other stuff. I'm not doing the citibank site here; it's my own personal
    website and I'm just not very concerned about people browsing the web on
    their cellphones and pda's.

    Anyway, for what its worth, I just came up with a new idea and am not going
    to be using frames--happy?
     
    TheKeith, Jun 26, 2003
    #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:
    1
    Views:
    93
    Csaba Gabor
    Mar 30, 2005
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    216
  3. target frame javascript

    , Aug 7, 2006, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    101
  4. Phlip
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    205
    Phlip
    Dec 17, 2006
  5. Aaron C
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    220
    Dr J R Stockton
    Nov 21, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page