|
Posted by Brian on November 2, 2004, 9:18 pm
Please log in for more thread options
me wrote:
> how many sites don't rely on javascript?
All the correctly authored ones, of course.
> One's that do and aren't very boring indeed I mean.
Warning, strawman alert!
--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
|
|
Posted by Alan Wood on November 3, 2004, 2:41 am
Please log in for more thread options
> > www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac.html - 43k - Cached - Similar pages
> >
> > On going to that, the page loads
> > http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac_frame.html
> >
> > which looks like a frameset to me!
>
> You only get there if you have Javascript enabled. So people not using
> Javascript never see the page's title or the site's navigation links.
My Web sites do NOT depend on JavaScript.
If you go to index_iupac.html with JavaScript disabled, then you will
see the <noscript> content. This gives you a link to load the
appropriate frameset - pure HTML, no JavaScript used.
--
Alan Wood
http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)
|
|
Posted by Lauri Raittila on November 1, 2004, 5:37 pm
Please log in for more thread options in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, me wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >And whilst we're at it:
> >http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html
>
> Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames? (A
> more up to date view rather than one written 7 years ago)
>
> The only really valid argument I can see on the above page is that
> lots of work would need to be duplicated to deal with the NOFRAMES
> scenario.
You are right, that is not biggest reason.
> (How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)
PDA stuff, I believe. In opera they can be turned of
> If a web page writer tests their design in several common browsers and
> at the common screen resolutions (as everyone does yes?),
There is no suc things. And resolution is irrelevant, window can be
different sized. Anyway, resolutions used are something 320-5500px * 80-
4000px.
> and the
> frames display as intended, why not use frames?
It is impossible. That is because how frames are defined. They just can't
be used for fluid stuff. Remember, with frames you must use either px or
% for widths and heights, and neither is good for measuring text.
> It's easy enough for a framed page to call up the frameset, so a
> search engine hit on a page can easily be dealt with.
Well, you don't need frames anyway, if that is solution, right? I believe
most traffic will come to most sites though search engines
> If there's a W3C doctype set for frames, then surely they can't be
> that bad, huh?
There is laws out there saying spamming is not illegal, so surely
spamming can't be that bad?
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
|
|
Posted by Darin McGrew on November 1, 2004, 8:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options Re: http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html
> Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames? (A
> more up to date view rather than one written 7 years ago)
There isn't a more up-to-date design of frames than the one Netscape
delivered 8 years ago. Why would we need a more up-to-date critique of the
design of frames than the one Arnoud wrote 7 years ago?
> The only really valid argument I can see on the above page is that
> lots of work would need to be duplicated to deal with the NOFRAMES
> scenario. (How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)
Keep looking. And FWIW, there's another summary here:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/frames.html#frame-problems
This weekend I spent some time describing the images on a few web pages for
a blind web user. The normal web pages were no problem; I'd just look up
the URL she gave me and describe the images.
The pages with frames were a hassle, because she couldn't just give me the
URLs of the content. She uses the computer every day, understood that
frames were being used, and was able to access the framed text just fine.
But when it came to the most basic detail of the content pages--their
URLs--the frames confused her.
And that is the fundamental problem with frames: they break the basic model
of how resources are addressed on the WWW.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
"There are 10 kinds of people:
those who understand binary arithmetic and those who don't."
|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on November 1, 2004, 8:24 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, "me" trolled:
> (How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)
Basically, as a browser user, I'd say "all of them" don't "deal with
frames".
Oh, sure, most of them do the -author's- bidding, in assembling the
author-specified visual representation on the display. But so does
PDF, or MS Word. That isn't what the WWW is about.
Where they all fail is where they -have- to fail because of the
whole basis of the original design. It's been like that since day 1,
and it isn't going to get any better.
And to make matters worse, most browsers are no-frames-incapable: even
where the author has provided a proper no-frames alternative (as one
should, according to WAI guidelines), the majority of browsers offer
the reader no way of actually /using/ the no-frames alternative from
choice.
> If a web page writer tests their design in several common browsers and
> at the common screen resolutions (as everyone does yes?), and the
> frames display as intended, why not use frames?
Read the original critique. A few minor blemishes of frames support
have been remedied in the intervening years, but the fundamentals are
still just as fundamentally broken as when they were originally
critiqued. At least we do now also have the WAI guidelines to point
to, so today there are arguably /more/ reasons for avoiding them than
there were at the start.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | BGCOLOR only in Opera, not other browsers (valid page) | May 4, 2008, 1:38 am |
| problems getting valid HTML out of PHP | September 17, 2004, 6:26 pm |
| valid html for framesets | February 13, 2005, 10:25 am |
| Valid HTML Tutorial | December 6, 2005, 12:12 pm |
| Inserting MP3 into Valid HTML | September 24, 2008, 8:03 pm |
![]() valid (X)HTML? | December 17, 2007, 6:31 pm |
| Unrecognized file format prolem with valid html, please help! | November 9, 2004, 6:55 pm |
| Seemingly-simple valid HTML renders diff in FF1.0, IE6 | January 25, 2005, 12:04 pm |
W3C Validator error?
is valid for doctype HTML 4.01 Strict | April 21, 2005, 12:46 pm |
| legality/practicality of nesting complete, valid HTML pages | November 14, 2008, 1:11 am |
|
XML Sitemap