frames? hate them or not?

[brucie]

In alt.html Spartanicus said:

The mantra is, if you set one color, set them all.

i agree with that mantra (except i would use more swearing)

Not specifying a background colour is fine provided that you're not
specifying any other (foreground, link colours etc).

common sense. you don't know what colors the visitor uses so conflicts
are easily possible. all it takes is someone simply changing the default
theme/skin for their GUI. it may or may not change the colors you expect
to be the same as yours, you just don't know.

 

[Neal]

i agree with that mantra (except i would use more swearing)

brucie, the world's only voluntary (**** YOU!) Tourette's Syndrome
sufferer...

 

[Samuël van Laere]

In alt.html SpaceGirl said:


my mommy could easily punch out your mommy

Didn't follow all is, but we do all agree that frames are cool right?
Everyone should use frames i'll say
Frames are the only way to go
No website is complete without frames
Good websites should use frames

Okay i must get back to my beloved drinks now, its strong stuff i'll tell
ya.

Regards,
Sam

 

[SE]

<alt.html , Lloyd , (e-mail address removed)>
<LwVld.40965$5K2.14917@attbi_s03>

I read years ago that a lot of surfers do NOT like pages made with frames.
I have been using Flash for years and somebody wants an html multi-page
site. I don't want to repeat the logo and table buttons and I do know how to
make a 3-frame site. Does anyon know if frames are still acceptable? Thanks
much,
Lloyd

You could use <iframe> depending on the design - but php if your
webspace has it is usually the easiest route .


<table width="950" border="0" align="center">
<tr valign="top">

<td class="niv">
<?php include ("menu.php"); ?>
</td>

<td class="mainbox">
<?php include ("inf_index.php"); ?>
</td>

</tr>
</table>


With menu.php only consisting of something like .....

<a href="index.php" class="butboxmid">HOME</a><br>
<a href="about.php" class="butboxmid">ABOUT</a><br>
<a href="contact.php" class="butboxmid">CONTACT</a><br>
<a href="faq.php" class="butboxmid">FAQ</a><br>
<a href="terms.php" class="butboxmid">T&amp;C</a><br>
<a href="register.php" class="butboxmid">REGISTER / LOGIN</a><br>
<a href="control.php" class="butboxmid">CONTROL PANEL</a><br>

It works fine - although i've never got around to finding out if the
usual html tags at the top or bottom make any difference .

 

[brucie]

In alt.html SE said:

<a href="index.php" class="butboxmid">HOME</a><br>
<a href="about.php" class="butboxmid">ABOUT</a><br>
<a href="contact.php" class="butboxmid">CONTACT</a><br>
<a href="faq.php" class="butboxmid">FAQ</a><br>
<a href="terms.php" class="butboxmid">T&amp;C</a><br>
<a href="register.php" class="butboxmid">REGISTER / LOGIN</a><br>
<a href="control.php" class="butboxmid">CONTROL PANEL</a><br>

li a{... whatever ...}

<ul>
<li><a href="index.php">HOME</a>
<li><a href="about.php">ABOUT</a>
<li><a href="contact.php">CONTACT</a>
<li><a href="faq.php">FAQ</a>
<li><a href="terms.php">T&amp;C</a>
<li><a href="register.php">REGISTER / LOGIN</a>
<li><a href="control.php">CONTROL PANEL</a>
</ul>

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Samuël van Laere scribbled in the mud:

Didn't follow all is, but we do all agree that frames are cool right?
Everyone should use frames i'll say
Frames are the only way to go
No website is complete without frames
Good websites should use frames

Frames are your friends!

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

I thought it was supposed to be a good habit to set background colors.
That's all.

It is better to leave the choice to the visitor. Enforcing object properties
(where unnecessary) only upsets people, e.g. defining font size in pixels
which obstructs the visually-impaired.

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Roy Schestowitz said:

It is better to leave the choice to the visitor.

that would mean not specifying any colors at all.

Enforcing object properties
(where unnecessary) only upsets people,

specifying a background color is not unnecessary.

e.g. defining font size in pixels
which obstructs the visually-impaired.

only for people using old and broken browsers.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

It is better to leave the choice to the visitor. Enforcing object
properties(where unnecessary) only upsets people,

I do not enforce anything on anyone. If a visitor gets upset by my styles
(which I find hard to believe), s/he can just switch off the stylesheet
and, there you go, gets a nicely marked up page that is fully functional
and readable. CSS is there just for the fun of it. I'm not going to serve
a page with just markup (and neither are you, IIRC).

Setting a background color is a good thing if you set other colors too.
You have no idea what color is the default of your visitors browser. If
you set for example any font color, be sure to set a background color too.
For all you know, your font color could be the default background color of
your visitor.

e.g. defining font size in pixels which obstructs the visually-impaired.

This is an entirely different subject and one I seem to care for less and
less (the pixel part that is, not the visually-impaired). I design the
presentation of my pages with no particular browser in mind, but I test
the design firstly and mainly in Opera (I love Opera; it's so unforgiving
sometimes ), secondly in FireFox. If they both get the idea right, I
then check how IE(6) renders my pages. Most of the times, and then I mean
really most of the times, somthing like 99,9% of the times, the designs
shows up there just fine (that is: functional). That is good enough for
me. I don't care that that browser is otherwise antique, faulty, buggy and
disfunctional (like not being able to rerender font sizes set in pixels in
an other size).

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Barbara de Zoete said:

I do not enforce anything on anyone. If a visitor gets upset by my styles
(which I find hard to believe), s/he can just switch off the stylesheet
and, there you go, gets a nicely marked up page that is fully functional
and readable.

will you marry me?

I design the presentation of my pages with no particular browser in
mind,
please!

but I test the design firstly and mainly in Opera (I love Opera;
beg!

it's so unforgiving sometimes ), secondly in FireFox. If they both
get the idea right, I then check how IE(6) renders my pages.
crawl!

Most of the times, and then I mean really most of the times, somthing
like 99,9% of the times, the designs shows up there just fine (that
is: functional). That is good enough for me. I don't care that that
browser is otherwise antique, faulty, buggy and disfunctional (like
not being able to rerender font sizes set in pixels in an other
size).

grovel!

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

In alt.html Roy Schestowitz said:

I still have no clue how Barbara came up with her complaint. The pages all
(almost all) have a background image which supercedes (sits on top of
rather) background colour and lives in harmony with the text colours I set.
I test my pages on a Mac, A Window$ machine (IE and Firefox) and a Linux
machine (Konqueror, Mozilla 1.2, 1.7, Firefox, Netscape).

that would mean not specifying any colors at all.

Sometimes that too! *smile*

specifying a background color is not unnecessary.

Only if you specify colours for text.

only for people using old and broken browsers.

Perhaps... will have to investigate...

 

[rf]

Barbara de Zoete wrote, without attribution to the preceeding poster:

I do not enforce anything on anyone. If a visitor gets upset by my styles
(which I find hard to believe), s/he can just switch off the stylesheet
and, there you go, gets a nicely marked up page that is fully functional
and readable. CSS is there just for the fun of it. I'm not going to serve
a page with just markup (and neither are you, IIRC).

First of all you might rethink your quoting style, like for instance putting
a blank line between the quoted bit and your reply. Read the above: Where
does your reply start? Expecially when my wordwrap is different to yours an
a few >s get thrown in there causing even more wordwrap.

Secondly, Please explain how the 80%+ of people out there who use IE are to
turn off CSS. Really, I don't know how to, other than to provide the browser
default CSS as my user default.

</requote>

Leave the choice to the visitor, certainly. Except if *your* choice implies
that they *must* also make another choice.

Consider:

body {color: white}

That is your choice but in making that choice you are "forcing" your visitor
to make another choice, that of background colour. How many people out there
know how to do this? Not many.

By choosing a foreground colour other than none (the default) (and this does
not include white) you must also choose a background colour.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

I still have no clue how Barbara came up with her complaint. The pages
all
(almost all) have a background image

Well, that is a clue, isn't it? I browse the internet with images *off*. I
don't want them, not at first. It speeds up my browsing for one and
seconly, I pay for the traffic, so I only will download an image if it is
necessary content (and a background image hardly ever is as it should not
be; besides, it would require me to dive in to the styles to find out that
there is an image).

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Roy Schestowitz said:

I still have no clue how Barbara came up with her complaint.

you have no background color

The pages all (almost all) have a background image which supercedes
(sits on top of rather) background colour and lives in harmony with
the text colours I set.

if you turn images off the background color is the browsers default
color. you need to specify a background color.

Perhaps... will have to investigate...

if you haven't got accessibility options turned on IE won't allow you to
change the size of text specified in px or pt and maybe others besides %
or em/ex, i cant remember.

i picked up people for doing it all the time but now i'm thinking i'll
just warn them that only IE prevents resizing, doesn't have a minimum
font size setting and its likely their design will fall apart for any
other browser.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:09:06 +0000, Roy Schestowitz

I do not enforce anything on anyone. If a visitor gets upset by my styles
(which I find hard to believe), s/he can just switch off the stylesheet
and, there you go, gets a nicely marked up page that is fully functional
and readable. CSS is there just for the fun of it. I'm not going to serve
a page with just markup (and neither are you, IIRC).

That's a valid point, but many visitors are too... ummm... amateur... or
just lazy... to disable CSS. Besides, with properly built sites (e.g. my
blog at http://schestowitz.com/Weblog), navigation becomes impractical when
you disable CSS.

Setting a background color is a good thing if you set other colors too.
You have no idea what color is the default of your visitors browser. If
you set for example any font color, be sure to set a background color too.
For all you know, your font color could be the default background color of
your visitor.

Let me guess that you disabled images, _as well as_ setting your background
colour to light green. Very political!

 

[brucie]

In alt.html rf said:

Secondly, Please explain how the 80%+ of people out there who use IE are to
turn off CSS. Really, I don't know how to, other than to provide the browser
default CSS as my user default.

if you insist on using such an old and crappy browser then you just have
to put up with its limitations.

 

[rf]

In alt.html rf said:


if you insist on using such an old and crappy browser then you just have
to put up with its limitations.

zzzzt. I don't use it, except for testing. I am speaking for the millions of
sheep out there to do/must.

It's ironic really. One of the banks the wife uses will not run on anything
other than IE. We have complained but to no avail.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Besides, with properly built sites (e.g. my
blog at http://schestowitz.com/Weblog), navigation becomes impractical
when you disable CSS.

I don't really understand. How can a properly built site (that implies
using good structure and markup) have an impractical navigation, ever?
Don't you just write your page, mark it up and then apply styles? If you
do it in that order, how can your navigation be impractical in any
situation?

My blog at <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html> can be
navigated with Lynx, if you have to. I don't understand your problem.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

In alt.html rf said:


if you insist on using such an old and crappy browser then you just have
to put up with its limitations.

Very few people hate Micro$o£t more than me and yet I know that ignoring IE
will be like bashing your head against the wall. Google likewise.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:45:00 +0000, Roy Schestowitz

I don't really understand. How can a properly built site (that implies
using good structure and markup) have an impractical navigation, ever?
Don't you just write your page, mark it up and then apply styles? If you
do it in that order, how can your navigation be impractical in any
situation?

The hierarchy is broken and the structure becomes something that is less
practical. It never becomes impractical, but I will have you aware that
when you disable CSS (and sometimes graphics) you can make navigation time
longer.

Pages are built to serve visitors (or clients). By being stern regarding
colours, CSS, graphics etc. you might be missing out on usability. I
changed fonts, colours, themes in KDE completely (see for example
http://www.schestowitz.com/temp/13102004.jpg) because it's all local. I
_never_ fiddle with the corresponding browser settings though.