Posted by dorayme on 09/07/05 06:18

> From: Mark Parnell <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au>
>
> Previously in alt.html, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> said:
>
>> A misunderstanding perhaps? Or a desire to see the worst? Your
>> remark is not appropriate to my comment (in spite of correctly
>> identifying the cons) but this may be my fault too. I was
>> referring to pros rather than the cons.
>
> I know. And my point was that I don't see any pros.
>

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. 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. 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. On this last point I am sure you have a good
case. But it is a different case to the case about individual
advantages. Ah... maybe I am wasting my breath...
fundamentalists are fundamentalists whether in religion or
politics or anything... :)

>> And your remark about
>> the myriad of scrollbars is unfair. There need not be a myriad
>> of them at all.
>
> For most framed sites, there does. Because I need the text fairly large
> to be able to read it, and if there are no scrollbars (e.g. on the
> menu), I can't get to half the menu items.
>

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... 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

>> This is the unfairness of inappropriate
>> exaggeration. I forget whether the scholastics had a fancy Latin
>> name for this reasoning mistake? Let us call it something with
>> an Australian flavour - what about a "Bruce"? You have committed
>> the Fallacy of Bruce.
>
> *sniff* I miss brucie. :-(

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...
>
>> Why is it absurd? You are in the middle of a long page and you
>> can't see any nav info and other comforting things?
>
> You press "home" on your keyboard. It's all back again.
>
>
>> You
>> don't want to use the home button and lose your place and the
>
> OK, so (on Windows at least, and let's face it - Windows users are the
> only ones likely to have this issue) scroll up to the top of the page,
> but don't release the scrollbar. You can have a good look at the
> navigation. When you're done, move the mouse back over to the left away
> from the scrollbar, and the page will jump back to where you were before
> you started scrolling. Amazing! ;-)
>
>> page designer does not want to put in bits and pieces of nav and
>> other stuff in the middle to make you feel comfortable.
>
> Understandably.
>
>
> Anyway as previously noted, you can still keep the menu on the screen
> without using frames, if that's the issue.
>

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. 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...)

[Back to original message]