|
|
Posted by Dr John Stockton on 09/21/06 14:46
JRS: In article <451088dd$0$2262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
dated Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:18:29 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.ww
w.authoring.html, Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950
<number@fieldcraft.biz> posted :
>"Dr John Stockton" <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jX2E5TB9H+DFFwy3@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
>> JRS: In article <450caef2$0$33171$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
>> dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:41:52 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.ww
>> w.authoring.html, Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950
>> <number@fieldcraft.biz> posted :
>> >
>> >Frames mess up your accessibility and search engine rankings - even the
>> >noframes content is largely ignored in my experience. Google for
>"Different
>> >and yet indifferent", then have a look at www.fieldcraft.biz/topics
>>
>> Naive statement.
>
>Perhaps. Like I later said, I may well have done something to deter the
>search engines on my framed pages, but I am yet to find out exactly what
>that is...
>
>> Frame capability is harmless.
>
>Agreed - only client-side scripting presents a risk. Even if you whitelist a
>site (given you've disabled all client-side scripting by default, IE in the
>"Internet Zone") and they load a page from another site in a frame - the
>scripts from the white-listed site will run but the scripts from the other
>site loaded in the frame will not run unless that other site is whitelisted
>as well.
We were not discussing that sort of harm; just accessibility / usability
for humans and search engines.
>> Forcing frames is deleterious.
>
>No doubt because it requires client-side scripting. There might be some
>server-side methods but I wonder if this could present problems for some
>brail readers or vision impaired visitors?
It does not require client-side scripting (as in javascript & vbscript);
just HTML.
>Is there still a market amongst visitors for frame-set functionality? What
>percentages of this year's visitors to http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk went on
>to spend more than thrity seconds at http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/toc.htm
>or http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/tic.htm?
They are only intended to be shown in frames, and frames only appear on
request. Providing the capability adds very little overhead. My type
of account does not provide that sort of usage statistics.
A small fraction of the bytes on the site are there for the convenience
of myself as author when working with the local master copy (for which
the copy on the server is also an off-site backup).
>BTW I think your site map is one of the best I've seen. Although I'd be
>inclined to give, "Index to Pages within this Site" a page of its own.
No, I want those who see the Index to be in possession of the other
material.
> Also
>I'd be inclined to give the rest of this index the same treatment as you've
>given index items
ISTM that a distinct style helps.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/>? JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|