|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 07/09/05 14:40
With neither quill nor qualm, Stewart Gordon quothed
> Neredbojias wrote:
> > With neither quill nor qualm, WCB quothed
> <snip>
> >> The question is, has anybody figured out about what % are
> >> not frames capable?
> >
> > As for browsers-in-use, I'd say less than 1%. All even halfway-modern
> > graphical browsers anyone's ever heard of support frames.
>
> Try telling Sagem that the web browser built into my mobile phone is a
> decade out of date, and that it should be ignoring the fact that framed
> layouts don't work well on such a small screen.
>
> And notice also your own words: _graphical_ browsers. OK, so there's no
> real reason browsers like Lynx and Braille devices can't be made to
> support frames, but the concept doesn't make much sense to a speech
> synthesiser....
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but if you view each
"possibility" of a frames page as a separate page, what's the
difference? That's the real problem with frames: the address/url, and
the only significant problem I can see.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|