Posted by Stewart Gordon on 07/11/05 11:53

Neredbojias wrote:
> 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 decade out of date, and that it should be ignoring the fact that framed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.

Do you mean such UAs should just display one frame at a time and provide
a means of switching between them? That can be done in theory. But in
practice, framesets tend to be designed on the assumption that the
frames will be displayed together. This means that if they are shown
separately, the user will often need to take an extra step to follow a
link (and this is actually rather slow on some mobile phones). OTOH if
you provide an alternative navigation interface for users who can't view
the frames together, then these people'll find it easier.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y?
PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

[Back to original message]