dorayme wrote:

> If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
> that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball.

No, but it does degrade gracefully.

> It plays ball with
> frames.

For the one and only "virtue" a statically positioned portion of the
page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws.

> Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
> with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.

What jerking?


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
news:doraymeRidThis-912165.10224325042008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:

> In article <d3ada$481087a3$40cba7d0$14062@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>> > I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps
>> > the menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply
>> > say use includes and walk away!
>> >
>>
>> That old argument it getting really tired. It is predicated that you
>> do not have any options when in fact it can be accomplished if you
>> wish with CSS and position: fixed.
>
> Actually, no one except you is going into tired old arguments. You and
> Bergamot and others seem to think that saying the least good thing
> about frames or ing someone to fix the odd problem is encouraging
> them or backing some side in old arguments. You have the wrong end of
> the wrong stick.
>
> Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness
> associated with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with
> frames.

IE6 does not "jerk" when simulating position: fixed, if you do it right.

Here are a couple of the many ways:

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/fixed.html
http://www.nowcss.com/javascript/emu...-in-ie-6-below


--
Richard
Killing all threads involving google groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
AB4302.11311525042008@web.aioe.org:

> In article <Bv9Qj.4722$ko5.1846@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
>> actually works.
>
> In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
> something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
> chimera.

Bookmarking does not work *perfectly* well.
Search engine bots do not work *perfectly* well.

I would rather have pages that are found correctly in the search engines
and which my viewers can return to easily when they wish. Framed pages
don't support either.

Here is a random page from one of the eighteen million pages out there that
contain the phrase "your browser does not support frames":

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ornit...ibit/title.htm

Where is their navigation?

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

dorayme wrote:
> In article <6TaQj.4754$ko5.2204@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
>> AB4302.11311525042008@web.aioe.org:
>>
>>> In article <Bv9Qj.4722$ko5.1846@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>> rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
>>>> actually works.
>>> In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
>>> something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
>>> chimera.
>> Bookmarking does not work *perfectly* well.
>
> You jump straight into a misunderstanding like a moth. You are all
> brainwashed earthlings (have you and Jonathan and Bergamot got your arms
> stretched out in front of you right now and walking in a straight line?)
> <g>
>
> I said many things work perfectly well. So you take this as an
> opportunity to say what does *not* work well! Good one, mate!
>
> You do this, as do others, because the issue of being less hysterical
> about frames is simply not on your radar. How, you think, can a sensible
> person nowadays not wholly detest and despise and want their total
> annihilation? If you send me $A10 I will send you out some literature
> from my organization Framepeace which is dedicated to protecting the few
> endangered framed sites around.
>

I think that anyone should be allowed unfettered ability to design a Web
site as they wish. (If it works, it works. If it doesn't, well, it's
their site.)

As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
their choices in so choosing.

As should you be allowed to run an organization to support what many of
us view as a flawed design philosophy.

Eventually, the failings of the design philosophy will either become
apparent to those using it or it won't matter.

Incessantly arguing about it will also, hopefully, eventually, become
nonsensical. But, probably not.

Frames are not evil. No souls are sent to hell because of their use.
But they are silly (the frames, not the souls). And fraught with
problems. So, a sensible person should, at least, say: "Well, ya
really don't wanna do that ..." Reasonably, one would hope, and in a
way that would convince rather than berate. Cajole instead of denigrate.

Ok. Why can't we all just get along? Let's now all sing Kumbaya!

Or, let's all just allow ourselves to be as odd as we like. To that end
I offer up:

http://edmullen.net/temp/06-2003Satu...nMyFashion.mp3

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.

dorayme wrote:
> In article <317fe$48112a0e$40cba7d0$30200@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
>>> that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball.
>> No, but it does degrade gracefully.
>>
>>> It plays ball with
>>> frames.
>> For the one and only "virtue" a statically positioned portion of the
>> page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws.
>>
>>> Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
>>> with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.
>> What jerking?
>
> At some stage in the history of the world Spartanicus said:
>
> "Apart from the obvious inefficient use of screen space, fixed elements
> or backgrounds can make scrolling slow and jerky, especially when using
> the keyboard. I've got my keyboard repeat delay set to the minimum and
> the repeat rate set to the maximum, the movement occurs in smaller steps
> and in a higher frequency compared to scrolling with the mouse wheel or
> dragging a scrollbar, this emphasizes the problem."
>

Firstly, did you try my example? What jerking keyboard or otherwise.

Secondly, I was not suggesting and JS workarounds for IE6, just let is
degrade. When old IE6 users scroll the page the navbar scrolls away with
it, Big whoop! Not catastrophic, most site work that way anyhow.

> Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
> knowledgeable. I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>
>

I am not suggesting the use of fixed navigation, that was your
suggestion for the absolute need of frames. I was just refuting your
claim that frames is the only viable way to do it and therefore frames
are needed for new sites. I say not so, can be done with CSS, and you
only leave old IE6 in the lurch. Not really though because the site will
still be accessible, not so with frames and text-only apps like Lynx.

My site's "Bouncing Betty" is JavaScript not CSS. I am not advocating
that either. My new version site I am working on it is history. I want
to reclaim the wasted 170px on the left.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
6933A0.12085625042008@web.aioe.org:

[frames]

> You don't get it do you? An existing framed site has a right to life.
> You should all top denigrating them to the point of framicide.

You don't get it, do you?

If a page can not be indexed correctly by the search engines then that page
is IMHO terribly broken. And google itself state quite up front that they
have trouble indexing framed pages.

If a page can not be referred to by name (instead of, say, "go to
example.com and press the [this is the page I mean] menu button) then that
page is terribly broken.

If an existing page is broken then it should be fixed. That way somebody
may be actaully able to find it some day.

If it is a new page (as I suspect) then it should not be using frames for
all the reasons discussed at length all over usenet[1]. I doubt this is a
legacy site, given the actual question and the source. However as the OP
appears to be a drive by google groper I guess we'll never know :-)



Lets de-cloud the issue by considering the OP's question.

OP has dug himself into a trench by using frames and suddenly wanting to do
what everybody else does and that is, I presume, disable or otherwise
change the menu item for the current page. Well, everybody else does this
server side with modern technology, and it is a blindingly simple task,
just an if statement around each echo that builds the menu, elapsed time to
write: 10 minutes (PHP assumed).

What the OP wants is very difficult to do with a standard framed page.

One could throw a truckload of client side javascript at it but to what
end? Simpler to write those if statements, which work for 100% of the
viewers.

It would be quite difficult to do server side. At the time the server is
asked to provide the menu "page" it has no idea at all which other "pages"
are being pulled to make up the framed page. One could perform all sorts of
skullduggery with sessions and what not to determine this, or perhaps build
a seperate frameset for each and every "page" on the site, pulling in a
different menu "page" for each (posibly via get variables), but to what
end. The energy expended in all of this would be far greater than that
required to simply serve up a suitable non-framed page using the odd if
statement. Probably greater than re-writing the site without frames.

Given the OP's requirements, as stated in his post, and all else aside,
frames are *not* the correct tool for this job.


[1] For any benifit you can possibly come up with *for* using frames it can
be quite easily demonstrated that said benifit can be easily achieved
*without* using frames. Including the dreaded use-up-canvas "fixed" menu.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
62FF4C.14521225042008@web.aioe.org:

> In article <xNOdnXqoZPWA0IzVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>
>> As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
>> their choices in so choosing.
>
> There is an issue in this that has nothing to do with allowing. It is
> about the appropriateness of bringing out the big guns and blazing away
> at the mere mention of a small problem with a framed site.

You think not being able to be indexed correctly by the search engines a
"small problem"?


--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
news:doraymeRidThis-1288C5.16213625042008@web.aioe.org:

> There is a whole world of websites that none of you has the least idea
> of. I have another organization called "SiteHide" which details a
> cultish practice. That of publishing but getting as close to zero
> visitors as possible. The aim is to throw Google off. Google is not
> your friend in this cult. It is your enemy. "Google is your enemy" is
> a phrase that we SiteHiders often use in discussing issues.

It has taken a while and I am remiss in identifing the problem far earlier.

dorayme, you are a bloody dipstick!

<plonk>

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

rf wrote:
>
> It has taken a while and I am remiss in identifing the problem far earlier.

Nice to know that someone else has seen the light. :-)

> dorayme, you are a bloody dipstick!
>
> <plonk>

I haven't gone as far as plonking yet, but I do skip over about 90% of
her posts. The florid writing style she's prone to is exceedingly
tedious to read, and being a bloody dipstick only makes it more painful.

--
Berg

dorayme wrote:
> In article <fce7$48114d5e$40cba7d0$17039@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <317fe$48112a0e$40cba7d0$30200@NAXS.COM>,
>>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>
>> ... I was not suggesting any JS workarounds for IE6, just let is
>> degrade. When old IE6 users scroll the page the navbar scrolls away with
>> it, Big whoop! Not catastrophic, most site work that way anyhow.
>>
>
> I am not the one making a *big* issue of this. I just mentioned that in
> a framed site you do not have to mess about or have anything degrade to
> get a fixed menu.

Actually you are. When a novice asks about frames I think it is
reasonable and rational to discourage the use of obsolete technology in
creating new sites where better solutions are now available. It is hard
to defend a technology which others have mentioned, Netscape the
inventors of the frame recognized it shortcoming and abandoned in 6
months (I cannot confirm that time frame, but I do remember their sites
site change soon after the frame sites was created). You would advocate
the use of LAYERs? DHTML tricks? Slice'nDice-ImageReady-AdobeGo pseudo
webpages? Matreshka nested table sites?

>
>>> Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
>>> knowledgeable. I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>
>>>
>> I am not suggesting the use of fixed navigation, that was your
>> suggestion for the absolute need of frames.
>
> Wrong completely and utterly. I have never suggested any absolute need
> for either fixed navigation nor for any technology that delivers it. I
> am just saying it can be a nice feature (for short menus - btw) of
> frames and it falls naturally* out of it without special need to do
> anything. You are getting all 'absolutely' and 'thingy' about it! I can
> see everyone rushing to your side in this argument. But the question is
> about how hard to go into someone who comes here with a simple question
> about frames not about what frames can do that something else can do
> better or worse.

If not for the static panel, considering all the other *real* problems
frames do have(do we need to list them here?) which a novice may not be
aware of, why should we encourage their continued use? Later we will
have to deal with their inevitable questions on frame synchronization,
bookmarking, and "how can I get rid of the frameset border"!

>> I was just refuting your
>> claim that frames is the only viable way to do it
>
> I never made such a claim. You are twisting the meaning of "viable" and
> putting words in my voice-throw-speaker. You are preparing the ground,
> cunningly to allow *less than wholly satisfying implementations*.

It seems that way. Other than the static panel, and server-less
includes, both of which can easily be accomplished in other ways without
the use of frames then why advocate frames? If you inherit a frame site
is one thing, but to create a new one?

>
>> and therefore frames
>> are needed for new sites. I say not so, can be done with CSS, and you
>> only leave old IE6 in the lurch.
>
> This is absolutely classical. You are happy to leave 32% of people in
> the lurch. If it was someone else who said this, you would be straight
> down their throats. But because this is a frames discussion, you adopt a
> more heartless approach. Shame on you Jonathan! I know Bergamot is a
> hard man with no conscience. But you? I would never have thought I would
> hear such a thing!

Who the hell said I said to leave IE6 users in the lurch? Now who is
distorting the issue? I was very explicit in saying there is only one
small aspect of the frame-less solutions that effects IE6. The CSS
method of production a static panel typically use for navbars and
banners. Aside of the fact that there is a JS solution that would only
exclude a tiny fraction (10% of 32% -- hmm do IE users even know how to
disable JS?) But even without JS when the "position: fixed" degrades it
is not like that page ceases to be usable for IE6 users! It will become
"position: static" and appear like the majority of websites. It would
only be a very minor thing to have the elements remain static instead of
fixed, some folks including ol' Spartacus would prefer it.

>
> ---------------
> * "falls naturally" means it is built into the technology, it is not
> some special dongle that you have to add. Think the way gravity falls
> out of *general* relativity theory as being a consequence of space and
> time and rather than some special extra entity or force. Therein lies
> its great beauty. You are all blind for one reason or another to the
> great natural elegance of frames, why the hell do you think it has had
> such a mesmerizing effect on folk long after NS itself dropped it for
> its own site (according to rf).

Not use what is "natural" at all about frames. It "naturally" follows
that folks have plenty of trouble with such "natural" elements as
evidence of the countless question on frames and iframes in the NG.

>
> I am annoyed that I have had to give you this juicy little tidbit for
> free from my Framepeace literature. If you have any conscience, if any
> of you have, you will damn well send me at least $US1.50.
>

no comment...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dorayme wrote:

> I have never suggested you should *encourage* the use of frames for a
> new site. I have never suggested you should never *discourage* the use
> of frames for new sites. I have not even suggested you should not
> mention the downsides of frames when someone has a problem with frames.
> Before you grab any old statement of mine and say "This suggests exactly
> the opposite", please seriously consider that you are not getting my
> drift.

And my point is one should *discourage* as with other obsolete html
techniques like layers... Some things were just a bad idea.

>
> If someone already has a framed site and it has one or two problems, it
> often seems fair to me to suggest a fix within the technology. The mere
> mention of frames (but perhaps not so much in this thread to be fair to
> you) should not be such a hair trigger for the reading out the riot act
> so loudly.

From OP I get the indication this is a new developing site. If not new
the it never functioned.

<snip>

> There are some things that frames do in a simple and natural way and you
> refuse to acknowledge this because, as far as I can see, you know a
> better way of doing things *on the whole*. A flimsy argument if there
> ever was one!
>
> There is no way I can get you to see this. My attempts and analogies
> seem to have upset you all.


Can't see any virtues, other than the static panel just see to be the
method of choice for the unsophisticated to "borrow" other site's
content and pass it off as their own.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com