|
|
Posted by Jim on 01/20/06 03:55
"dorayme" <doraymebutuse777insubjectline@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymebutuse777insubjectline-B1B647.12295720012006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <0xPzf.1294$pU2.805@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> "Jim" <reply@groups.please> wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" <doraymebutdeletethis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:43cf8930$0$22294$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> > Jim wrote:
>> >
>> >> I cannot discuss exactly what I am going to do just yet, but for an
>> >> excellent example of why you'd want to put other sites in a frame, go
>> >> to
>> >> http://torrentsearcher.filesharingplace.com .
>> >
>> > Yes, I understand, I have come to appreciate the need for some
>> > discretion
>> > and secrecy from Luigi. What, Jim, are we to see in particular? I am on
>> > a
>> > bit of a slow dialup and any help would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>> The example shows a navigation frame on the left with a search field and
>> several buttons of various torrent search engines. When you enter some
>> search words and click a link in the left frame, the right frame shows
>> the
>> search engine (who's name you clicked in the left frame) in it's
>> entirety.
>> Nothing is changed or removed from the pages being displayed.
>>
>
> Well, when I clicked on The Pirate Bay link, it started to load
> in the right frame and then suddenly took over the whole browser
> window with the other site, the navigation left pane disappeared
> and the back button was cleared of its history...
>
> But I know how it is meant to operate, let us put this down to a
> glitch or action by the loaded site content's owners.
The pirate bay people may have objected to this use (although I cannot see
why they would).
There are ways of defeating Pirate Bay's javascript that is used to break
free of the frames. That is the technology I will be using - even if the
website has the javascript designed to break the site free of a frame, it
will not function as they expect - and their content will be "framed".
>
>> I think this is an appropriate use of frames to show other web pages.
>
> Perhaps. With various safeguards like notices to avoid creating
> any misapprehensions and maybe even permission from the sites
> concerned (perhaps this would avoid trouble in the operation too)
>
> Suppose there are good arguments to say that if you can do
> something from the start without frames and with not too much
> trouble, you should. In the light of this, you need to assess
> your above phrase "an appropriate use of frames".
To me , an appropriate use of frames would be...
1) Any use that does not lay claim to content that you did not create and
2) that does not alter the core content of the site and
3) in which all added content (above, beside, under or alongside) another
website's content, in frames or not, should be clearly marked (perhaps by
using a highlighting background color) as coming from your enhancements -
not from the original website's content and
4) should be coded such that the frames enhancements will not interfere with
the ability of the user to bookmark the page referenced (you should add a
"Bookmark this page" button programatically, if need be, as frames will
interfere with normal bookmarking of the target site).
>
> I speak from some experience here. I had a fair sized commercial
> site in frames for many years (it was as appropriate a use of
> frames as ever existed) and could barely face the idea of
> reconfiguring it without. But - under pressure from much
> commentary on this ng, mostly nothing to do with me personally, I
> did. It was a big job for me but am very glad I did.
>
> The point I want to make to you is this: The navigation for that
> site is _still_ on the left and the contents _still_ appeared on
> the right. The back and forward buttons that God in His Wisdom
> gave browsers, work naturally and intuitively in His Image. And I
> avoid many search engine and other associated frames problems.
>
> And, frankly, I was freed to design more fluidly and do things
> that either I could not before or simply did not think of. The
> result was a thing of incredible beauty and power.
This is great for sites that you control. But, it is impractical as a
substitute for frames because it is not possible (AFAIK) to efficiently
"host" another page with your navigation at left without the use of frames.
>
> But you perhaps have more practical aims... good luck!
After looking at the options, it is simpler for me if I use frames to
accomplish my goals. I will have to force pages to stay within those frames
(even those with scripts designed to defeat being framed) - but I think the
trade-off is worth the fuss that the webmasters will make.
It may be a total bust.....who knows? If the surfing public does not like
it, or if it becomes a tool for abuse of websites, I will withdraw it.
The webmasters that may not like it will simply have to learn to grin and
bear it. The entire web (unless you have a passworded site) is for the
surfers. And, if the people elect to surf using my tools to make the web a
more lively and interactive place - so be it.
I can assure you that I do not want negative press or hard feelings, that I
take my responsibilities as a programmer quite seriously and would do
nothing to tarnish the name of my family or my company.
Although there will be objections (and bugs to be worked out for sure), I
will do my best to balance the needs of the surfer with the needs and rights
of the content owners.
No matter what you do, if you do anything at all, somebody will criticize,
condem or complain. As will be the case with my tools.
I say....webmasters be silent.....let the surfers speak. I will listen to
them, for they are what makes the web work.
Jim
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|