|
|
Posted by Mark Parnell on 09/07/05 06:45
Previously in alt.html, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> said:
> Well. Some of them are so obvious. But I fear that whatever
> particular advantage is pointed out, you will have a particular
> alternative to that.
Probably. But that's because there generally *is* a better alternative.
> You have shown the tendency already by
> talking about home buttons, menus at the bottom, holding mouse
> buttons downs etc etc etc. You miss the simplicity of the gift
> to the viewer.
But as I said before, that's not what the viewer is going to expect,
based on most other sites. And the detriments that come with frames
IMNSHO far outweigh any potential advantages.
> And when finally you could be gotten kicking and
> screaming to admit that in isolation some features could be seen
> as pros you will make the point that overall it is better to do
> without frames.
Indeed.
> On this last point I am sure you have a good
> case. But it is a different case to the case about individual
> advantages.
How can it be? If you use frames, you get all the effects of them, not
just an individual feature.
> Ah... maybe I am wasting my breath...
I'm happy to continue until such time as the conversation degrades into
flaming or mudslinging. :-)
> fundamentalists are fundamentalists whether in religion or
> politics or anything... :)
But you miss the point that I am also right. ;-)
> Well, I did not think we were talking about some statistical
> thing about most framed sites. The designer must take account of
> text going larger and set appropriate widths... And you also
> have the facility of dragging the frame borders...
I'm thinking more of the height of the screen - too many items in a
sidebar menu will make it go off the bottom of the screen, regardless of
how wide I make it.
> If you are
> enlarging greatly, I would bet you would be having to do quite a
> bit of fiddling on the average poorly designed non-framed sites
> too
No, I just go on to the next search result, that I *can* read. Same as I
do with a framed site.
> Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I did not mean to refer
> to your "Brucie" in any way. I do not know this person but I do
> know about his hero status... I say this because I do not want
> to be drawn and quartered. Honest, I didn't mean nuthin'. Just a
> coincidence of name. (yeah, i know, it may have just "reminded"
> you). But I say this in case...
I know. I was just reminiscing. :-)
> I confess that for me this is a big issue often. I had gotten
> the impression that fixed position was not well supported? Must
> look into this again.
position: fixed; is supported in all modern browsers. There are
workarounds for older browsers like IE, and it doesn't even have to
involve scripting.
http://tagsoup.com/-dev/null-/css/fixed/
> You are most welcome to say more on this
> feature and the workarounds etc and I would show the appropriate
> appreciation... (I have more NZ jokes to give out...)
NZ jokes are always welcome. :-)
--
Mark Parnell
http://clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|