 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was discussing HTML with someone who said a lot of people hate frames. He
suggested css div's.
Can someone help me understand the objection. Is it a question of tackiness--
maybe even snootiness that it's an "old" technique? Or does it actually hamper
some users from accessing material? In the scenario I'm thinking about it's
better to be tacky & universally accessible than bleeding edge.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Can someone help me understand the objection. Is it a question of
> tackiness--
> maybe even snootiness that it's an "old" technique? Or does it actually
> hamper
> some users from accessing material? In the scenario I'm thinking about
> it's
> better to be tacky & universally accessible than bleeding edge.
It's impossible to bookmark the page or copy/send a link if any of the
frames have been changed (eg you followed a link inside a frame).
And I heard that search engines ignore them (as in totally ignore, you're
pages won't get indexed).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
web.4ba0f9e86fcf5fa830bf98980@news.povray.org...
>I was discussing HTML with someone who said a lot of people hate frames. He
> suggested css div's.
>
> Can someone help me understand the objection. Is it a question of
> tackiness--
> maybe even snootiness that it's an "old" technique? Or does it actually
> hamper
> some users from accessing material? In the scenario I'm thinking about
> it's
> better to be tacky & universally accessible than bleeding edge.
The content in frames cannot be linked properly: it's either a link to the
home page or a link to the content frame itself (without the top and side
frames), so frames are awful for sharing stuff. In any case, most web
content is now database-generated on the fly so frames are no longer useful
(and css and div is the norm rather than bleeding edge today).
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, thanks, all. In this scenario, the material would only be accessed from a
DVD, not from the internet, so I'm inclined to stick with frames.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:37:28 -0000, gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoo com>
did spake thusly:
> Okay, thanks, all. In this scenario, the material would only be accessed
> from a
> DVD, not from the internet, so I'm inclined to stick with frames.
>
Put it like this, if frames weren't allowed there wouldn't be a XHTML
Frameset DTD ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> I was discussing HTML with someone who said a lot of people hate frames.
> He suggested css div's.
>
> Can someone help me understand the objection. Is it a question of
> tackiness--
> maybe even snootiness that it's an "old" technique? Or does it actually
> hamper
> some users from accessing material? In the scenario I'm thinking about
> it's better to be tacky & universally accessible than bleeding edge.
Scrolling individual frames on the iPhone browser is a pain. And it's not
the iPhone's fault; I can't think of a better UI really.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
