|
|
Posted by Leonard Blaisdell on 09/08/05 08:04
In article <BF45FF55.16B06%dorayme@optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I have to stress that the total argument between frames and non
> frames is one thing. For example, I would be unlikely to make a
> commercial site with frames again.
It would be unfair to your client if you did so without telling them the
specifics of why frames don't work well and understanding them yourself.
> But it is a different thing
> to the fact of the easy advantages of some features of frames.
Easily duplicated by CSS which is easy to implement and learn. It's the
nonspecific browser garbage that confuses the issue. And there wouldn't
be an issue if IE conformed correctly.
> (I like updating and looking at the one site with frames on my
> books, it is nice to operate and think through using the nav
> system on the left and worrying mainly only about the simpler
> code of the right content).
Not sure what you mean here that I didn't state above.
> In my mild dispute with the good Mark Parnell, I have been
> unable to get this point across. It is hard to get folk who are
> convinced of the evil of frames in general to admit the
> slightest thing about them on the positive side of the ledger.
There isn't one. Frames are 'truly' evil. Seductive to the designer and
garbage to the user.
>But in this, I am probably more
> unreasonable than I should be!
Yup.
leo
--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|