|
|
Posted by Leonard Blaisdell on 10/11/85 11:20
In article <MPG.1d332edf55f058b4989693@news.aardvark.net.au>,
grakat <tenxng@ban.arg.nh> wrote:
> In article <MPG.1d30cf15acb2e18e989692@news.aardvark.net.au>,
> tenxng@ban.arg.nh says...
> > I don't use frames myself - are they really that bad?
> >
> Thanks everybody. I guess frames aren't really evil after all; maybe
> just a little misunderstood.
> I still won't use them on a new site, but I'll stop obsessing over old
> ones.
If your old sites are commercial, now would be a good time to get your
thoughts together about how you used "cutting-edge" technology to
provide clients with the "very best solution available" at the time. But
alas, the web has moved on, and events have forced you to come to them
now, as the web has matured, to offer to redo the sites without frames
and incidentally for a fee, as they are now obsolete. You'll use a whole
new and much better technology that utilizes any-size-design, CSS to
unclutter the pages and make them faster, compliance to some spec, etc,
etc... If you have your thoughts together and you're good at sales, you
can do this. Otherwise someone else probably will.
I wouldn't advertise old framed sites until I fixed them up. Nearly all
commercial sites get upgraded periodically. It keeps developers alive.
leo
--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|