Re: Eureka! How to create or get rid of scrollbars in Netscape

Discussion in 'HTML' started by My Liege, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. My Liege

    My Liege Guest

    "EightNineThree" <> wrote in
    news:bg88hd$k6a$:

    >
    > "My Liege" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns93C817C816509HombreVIIIyahoocom@216.148.227.77...
    >> brucie <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >> > In post <bg74f9$t27$>
    >> > EightNineThree said...
    >> >
    >> >>> Yes, frames are evil for many reasons, none of which apply to the
    >> >>> page I used it on.
    >> >
    >> >> Everyone thinks their situation is unique. They never are...
    >> >
    >> > exactly my thoughts.
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> Great lemmings think alike. Can either of you actually explain *why*
    >> using a single frame to get rid of a scrollbar in netscape is a bad
    >> idea for a page? Or instead is dismissing it with hand-waving and
    >> self- congratulatory tripe garnished with links to sites that also do
    >> not adress that use of them all you can do?
    >>

    >
    > No, it isn't all I can do. I can also make websites that work
    > properly, unlike you.



    Rock and roll!!!!!!


    >
    > When you wake up out of this moronic fog you're in and finally
    > understand how a website is supposed to be made, you'll slap yourself
    > and say "Wow, I really was a dumbass for talking shit to all of those
    > people who were trying to give me good advice"



    Lol, I found a simple answer to a question I'd seen asked several times,
    all of which were responded to with variations of "it can't be done" and
    shared it with this group. In reply, I got a bunch of autoresponses
    saying frames suck, rudely phrased criticism about my page, and arrogant
    dismissals from those who couldn't be bothered to explain why they
    disagreed with my solution. No, I don't think I'll regret "talking shit"
    to you.


    >
    > Has it not occured to you that perhaps the very fact that you have to
    > *try* to come up with such a "solution" means your design is flawed
    > from the start?



    No, non sequiturs rarely occur to me. Just because I have to do something
    different to get a page to fit the design I want in one browser than
    another doesn't make the design flawed.


    >
    > No matter what excuse you come up with about why you "need" to get rid
    > of a scrollbar, the truth is, the design is simply broken and you need
    > a new approach altogether.



    Your argument seems to be that the design is "broken" because it requires
    eliminating a scrollbar which can cause problems if the window is too
    small. But the reality seems to me to be the window is rarely going to be
    too small, and can always be maximized anyway. All the other arguments
    about not being able to bookmark the page with the different sets of
    links already displayed in the window seem absolutely trivial to me.
    Other than it not conforming to your group ideology in here, would you
    really give a **** about that? Do you have any reasons that aren't
    trivial to object to my design on this page?
    My Liege, Jul 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "My Liege" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93C846CCB8230HombreVIIIyahoocom@204.127.199.17...
    > "EightNineThree" <> wrote in
    > news:bg88hd$k6a$:
    >


    <snip>

    > In reply, I got a bunch of autoresponses
    > saying frames suck, rudely phrased criticism about my page, and arrogant
    > dismissals from those who couldn't be bothered to explain why they
    > disagreed with my solution.


    Let's see -
    We can sit here and re-type the same thing that everyone else on earth has
    already told you about frames.
    I can sit here and re-type my own article that explains why frames are shit.
    Or we can cut & paste links to articles dealing with the subject and you can
    show the initiative to read them instead of acting like a little selfish
    baby.

    >
    > >
    > > Has it not occured to you that perhaps the very fact that you have to
    > > *try* to come up with such a "solution" means your design is flawed
    > > from the start?

    >
    >
    > No, non sequiturs rarely occur to me. Just because I have to do something
    > different to get a page to fit the design I want in one browser than
    > another doesn't make the design flawed.
    >


    You just said it yourself!
    "Just because I have to do something different to get a page to fit the
    design "

    THAT MEANS YOUR DESIGN IS FLAWED, YA IDJIT!


    >
    > >
    > > No matter what excuse you come up with about why you "need" to get rid
    > > of a scrollbar, the truth is, the design is simply broken and you need
    > > a new approach altogether.

    >
    >
    > Your argument seems to be that the design is "broken" because it requires
    > eliminating a scrollbar


    Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.
    Your design shouldn't "require" anything except a browser (of any brand on
    any operating system).
    If it "requires" anything else, then you're a clueless fuckwit and don't
    know what you're doing.

    > which can cause problems if the window is too
    > small. But the reality seems to me to be the window is rarely going to be
    > too small,


    How do you know this?
    Why should it matter?

    > All the other arguments
    > about not being able to bookmark the page with the different sets of
    > links already displayed in the window seem absolutely trivial to me.


    Of course. Because you aren't going to be getting much in the way of repeat
    traffic anyway.

    > Other than it not conforming to your group ideology in here, would you
    > really give a **** about that?


    Here's a clue.
    " User Centered-Design (UCD) is a philosophy and a process. It is a
    philosophy that places the person (as opposed to the 'thing') at the center;
    "
    http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/articles/ucd _web_devel.html

    http://www.karlcore.com/linksdisplay.php?cat=Usability


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Jul 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. My Liege

    My Liege Guest

    "EightNineThree" <> wrote in
    news:bg9fa2$iuo$:

    >
    > "My Liege" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns93C846CCB8230HombreVIIIyahoocom@204.127.199.17...
    >> "EightNineThree" <> wrote in
    >> news:bg88hd$k6a$:
    >>

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> In reply, I got a bunch of autoresponses
    >> saying frames suck, rudely phrased criticism about my page, and
    >> arrogant dismissals from those who couldn't be bothered to explain
    >> why they disagreed with my solution.

    >
    > Let's see -
    > We can sit here and re-type the same thing that everyone else on earth



    *cough* you really think your little group here is all there is to the
    web don't you?


    > has already told you about frames.
    > I can sit here and re-type my own article that explains why frames are
    > shit.



    Hell, why don't I copy the 7 reasons your article says they suck for
    you...

    1. Frames make it difficult for users to bookmark a page.

    Doesn't apply to the frame on my page. You could argue the Javascript,
    but the frame creates no bookmarking issues.

    2. The myth of shared navigation

    I don't use the frame for navigation.

    3. Frames create difficulties with "intuitive" navigation.

    I don't use the frame for navigation.

    4. Frames are less likely to be crawled effectively by search engines.

    A point I'm considering, but this isn't really the page of my site I want
    search engines to index anyway.

    5. Lost search engine referrals.

    As there are no seperate pages under the frame, this can't happen on my
    page.

    6. Frames often needlessly eat up valuable screen real estate.

    Mine doesn't.

    7. Framed sites are a hindrance for handicapped users.

    I've got a redirect in there.


    Hey, what do you know. Its just like I said, your article *doesn't*
    address my usage of the frame and you've been dismissively hand-waving
    without any real argument.


    > Or we can cut & paste links to articles dealing with the subject
    > and you can show the initiative to read them instead of acting like a
    > little selfish baby.



    But, I have read them. And now I've taken the time to prove that yours
    didn't address it. Do you really think its selfish of me not to prove it
    for each article you link? Here's a better idea, why don't you cut and
    paste the text of an article that does address it or try and argue the
    point yourself. So far, your dogmatic prose has been very unconvincing,
    being entirely lacking in argument.


    >
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Has it not occured to you that perhaps the very fact that you have
    >> > to *try* to come up with such a "solution" means your design is
    >> > flawed from the start?

    >>
    >>
    >> No, non sequiturs rarely occur to me. Just because I have to do
    >> something different to get a page to fit the design I want in one
    >> browser than another doesn't make the design flawed.
    >>

    >
    > You just said it yourself!
    > "Just because I have to do something different to get a page to fit
    > the design "
    >
    > THAT MEANS YOUR DESIGN IS FLAWED, YA IDJIT!



    Once again, non sequitur. Look it up before you do it again.


    >
    >
    >>
    >> >
    >> > No matter what excuse you come up with about why you "need" to get
    >> > rid of a scrollbar, the truth is, the design is simply broken and
    >> > you need a new approach altogether.

    >>
    >>
    >> Your argument seems to be that the design is "broken" because it
    >> requires eliminating a scrollbar

    >
    > Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.
    > Your design shouldn't "require" anything except a browser (of any
    > brand on any operating system).



    And I'm trying to accomplish that for the end user.


    > If it "requires" anything else, then you're a clueless fuckwit and
    > don't know what you're doing.



    I'm well clued into the fact that none of you has even come close to a
    valid argument against the way I'm using that frame yet.


    >
    >> which can cause problems if the window is too
    >> small. But the reality seems to me to be the window is rarely going
    >> to be too small,

    >
    > How do you know this?



    I have sources of information that you have wet dreams about.


    > Why should it matter?



    Because fuckwit, if almost nobody is going to have a problem with their
    window being to small and can easily fix it if they do, then I don't need
    to scrap the design in favor of looking like every other all-text and
    small images page on the net. Like your boring site for example.


    >
    > > All the other arguments
    >> about not being able to bookmark the page with the different sets of
    >> links already displayed in the window seem absolutely trivial to me.

    >
    > Of course. Because you aren't going to be getting much in the way of
    > repeat traffic anyway.



    Because you just know everyone's going to be so offended that the page
    didn't work on Opera with the browser size of 200 x 200 and their
    javascript turned off that they won't come back.


    >
    >> Other than it not conforming to your group ideology in here, would
    >> you really give a **** about that?

    >
    > Here's a clue.
    > " User Centered-Design (UCD) is a philosophy and a process. It is a
    > philosophy that places the person (as opposed to the 'thing') at the
    > center; "
    > http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/articles/ucd _web_devel.html



    All very intuitive, but still a very good article IMO.


    >
    > http://www.karlcore.com/linksdisplay.php?cat=Usability



    I think that page would be much more usable if it were possible to get to
    your point quickly. Try adding a brief introduction which summarizes the
    basics to give your users a reason to follow the links and read the often
    massive amounts of text which they point at.
    My Liege, Jul 31, 2003
    #3
  4. My Liege

    Mark Parnell Guest

    My Liege wrote:
    > "EightNineThree" <> wrote in
    > news:bg9fa2$iuo$:
    >
    > 1. Frames make it difficult for users to bookmark a page.
    >
    > Doesn't apply to the frame on my page. You could argue the Javascript,
    > but the frame creates no bookmarking issues.
    >


    Of course it does. As others have said, what if the user wants to only
    bookmark one section of the links? You are preventing them from doing that.

    > 4. Frames are less likely to be crawled effectively by search engines.
    >
    > A point I'm considering, but this isn't really the page of my site I
    > want search engines to index anyway.
    >


    So how do you expect people to find it?

    > 5. Lost search engine referrals.
    >
    > As there are no seperate pages under the frame, this can't happen on
    > my page.
    >


    Of course it can. If the SEs can't index your page, then no one is going to
    find it when they search, are they? And even if it does get indexed, as
    with bookmarking, if the user is looking for a specific page, and (however
    unlikely) yours shows up in the results, they click on the link and get your
    main page, take one look, think "That's not what I was looking for", and go
    back to the next result.

    > 7. Framed sites are a hindrance for handicapped users.
    >
    > I've got a redirect in there.
    >


    Which, as someone else pointed out, doesn't work on many (any?) text
    browsers, speech browsers, and other devices that the handicapped use. So
    they get your framed page, and can't use it.

    >>>
    >>> Your argument seems to be that the design is "broken" because it
    >>> requires eliminating a scrollbar

    >>
    >> Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.
    >> Your design shouldn't "require" anything except a browser (of any
    >> brand on any operating system).

    >
    > And I'm trying to accomplish that for the end user.
    >


    By employing a broken solution for a non-existent problem? Interesting
    philosophy.

    >
    > I'm well clued into the fact that none of you has even come close to a
    > valid argument against the way I'm using that frame yet.
    >


    Of course we have. Numerous times. You just refuse to listen to reason.

    >
    >>
    >>> which can cause problems if the window is too
    >>> small. But the reality seems to me to be the window is rarely going
    >>> to be too small,

    >>
    >> How do you know this?

    >
    >
    > I have sources of information that you have wet dreams about.
    >


    In other words, you're making it up. You have no proof at all.

    >>
    >>> All the other arguments
    >>> about not being able to bookmark the page with the different sets of
    >>> links already displayed in the window seem absolutely trivial to me.

    >>
    >> Of course. Because you aren't going to be getting much in the way of
    >> repeat traffic anyway.

    >
    >
    > Because you just know everyone's going to be so offended that the page
    > didn't work on Opera with the browser size of 200 x 200 and their
    > javascript turned off that they won't come back.
    >


    You forgot the huge size of the images, meaning a long download time,
    especially for those users on dialup.

    --

    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Jul 31, 2003
    #4
  5. My Liege

    My Liege Guest

    "goodhart" <> wrote in
    news:eD%Va.240$:

    >>
    >> 7. Framed sites are a hindrance for handicapped users.
    >>
    >> I've got a redirect in there.
    >>

    >
    > Your frame is completely unusable in lynx or my speach browser, and
    > therefore unusable for
    > most people with disabilities, many of the devices used by people with
    > disabilities will not recognise
    > your silly little redirect.



    I didn't know that. Sounds like those browsers are pretty much crap if
    they can't handle a redirect, but I'll see if I can solve that.


    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > "As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we
    > know. We
    > also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are
    > some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The
    > ones we don't know we don't know". ~~Donald H Rumsfeld~~
    >
    >
    >
    My Liege, Jul 31, 2003
    #5
  6. My Liege

    My Liege Guest

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in
    news:3f288d84$0$23611$:

    > My Liege wrote:
    >> "EightNineThree" <> wrote in
    >> news:bg9fa2$iuo$:
    >>
    >> 1. Frames make it difficult for users to bookmark a page.
    >>
    >> Doesn't apply to the frame on my page. You could argue the
    >> Javascript, but the frame creates no bookmarking issues.
    >>

    >
    > Of course it does. As others have said, what if the user wants to
    > only bookmark one section of the links?



    That has nothing to do with the frame, and is exactly the javascript I
    was referring to.


    > You are preventing them from
    > doing that.



    The frames got nothing to do with that.


    >
    >> 4. Frames are less likely to be crawled effectively by search
    >> engines.
    >>
    >> A point I'm considering, but this isn't really the page of my site I
    >> want search engines to index anyway.
    >>

    >
    > So how do you expect people to find it?



    Through the other pages in the site.


    >
    >> 5. Lost search engine referrals.
    >>
    >> As there are no seperate pages under the frame, this can't happen on
    >> my page.
    >>

    >
    > Of course it can. If the SEs can't index your page, then no one is
    > going to find it when they search, are they?



    Was reffering to referrals to in-frame pages. The frame page being
    unindexed I addressed above.



    > And even if it does get
    > indexed, as with bookmarking, if the user is looking for a specific
    > page, and (however unlikely) yours shows up in the results, they click
    > on the link and get your main page, take one look, think "That's not
    > what I was looking for", and go back to the next result.



    If in one look they can't figure it out, let 'em go. The page doesn't
    take a rocket scientist to use.


    >
    >> 7. Framed sites are a hindrance for handicapped users.
    >>
    >> I've got a redirect in there.
    >>

    >
    > Which, as someone else pointed out, doesn't work on many (any?) text
    > browsers, speech browsers, and other devices that the handicapped use.



    They really should improve those things. I wonder if you all got on there
    case as much as you've gotten on mind if you might get better results?


    > So they get your framed page, and can't use it.
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> Your argument seems to be that the design is "broken" because it
    >>>> requires eliminating a scrollbar
    >>>
    >>> Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.
    >>> Your design shouldn't "require" anything except a browser (of any
    >>> brand on any operating system).

    >>
    >> And I'm trying to accomplish that for the end user.
    >>

    >
    > By



    trying all sorts of things to get the page to work in as many browsers as
    possible while still maintaining the artistic design even if it goes
    against the grain of what the "alt.html" crowd normally does?

    Yes.


    > Interesting philosophy.



    Thanks. I call it a can-do attitude.


    >
    >>
    >> I'm well clued into the fact that none of you has even come close to
    >> a valid argument against the way I'm using that frame yet.
    >>

    >
    > Of course we have. Numerous times. You just refuse to listen to
    > reason.



    "Frames suck" "your page is broken" "that javascript is clumsy"

    These are the arguments you find reasonable?


    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> which can cause problems if the window is too
    >>>> small. But the reality seems to me to be the window is rarely going
    >>>> to be too small,
    >>>
    >>> How do you know this?

    >>
    >>
    >> I have sources of information that you have wet dreams about.
    >>

    >
    > In other words, you're making it up. You have no proof at all.



    Yawn, I'm drawing the conclusion inductively.


    >
    >>>
    >>>> All the other arguments
    >>>> about not being able to bookmark the page with the different sets
    >>>> of links already displayed in the window seem absolutely trivial to
    >>>> me.
    >>>
    >>> Of course. Because you aren't going to be getting much in the way of
    >>> repeat traffic anyway.

    >>
    >>
    >> Because you just know everyone's going to be so offended that the
    >> page didn't work on Opera with the browser size of 200 x 200 and
    >> their javascript turned off that they won't come back.
    >>

    >
    > You forgot the huge size of the images, meaning a long download time,
    > especially for those users on dialup.



    Repeat traffic usually means images in the cache.
    My Liege, Jul 31, 2003
    #6
  7. My Liege

    Steve Pugh Guest

    My Liege <> wrote:

    >> Your frame is completely unusable in lynx or my speach browser, and
    >> therefore unusable for most people with disabilities, many of the
    >> devices used by people with disabilities will not recognise
    >> your silly little redirect.

    >
    >
    >I didn't know that. Sounds like those browsers are pretty much crap if
    >they can't handle a redirect, but I'll see if I can solve that.


    Your redirect is crap.

    1. Valid HTML would be <noframes> not <no frames>.

    2. <meta> tags can only go in the <head>, nowhere else.

    3. Not all browsers support <meta> redirects, and many give the user
    the ability to turn it off.

    There are ways to make frames accessible, you haven't used any of
    them.

    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, Jul 31, 2003
    #7
    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. rf
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    326
    My Liege
    Jul 30, 2003
  2. Ben
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    441
    My Liege
    Jul 31, 2003
  3. Steve Pugh
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    375
    Steve Pugh
    Aug 1, 2003
  4. Hywel Jenkins
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    392
    My Liege
    Jul 30, 2003
  5. EightNineThree
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    371
    My Liege
    Jul 31, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page