Posted by dorayme on 09/08/05 08:39

> From: Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com>
>
> 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.
>

As I said, I would be unlikely to make a framed site for a commercial
client. So what quite is the relevance of your remark? I will pass over this
idea of yours of discussing technical matters with clients...


>> 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.
>

"Easily duplicated", "easy to implement" "and learn" "the nonspecific
browser garbage ... confuses the issue" "wouldn't be an issue if IE
conformed correctly"

You are spraying stuff all over the place. (Just btw, how come you left out
a phrase about the popularity of IE? Did not suit your fundamentalist
stance?). I took some trouble to make a distinction between the overall
balance of the ledger sheet - admittedly in favour of dropping frames
technology - on all this and you make exactly the mistake in scope that I
described.


>> (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.
>
Yes, well, there you go. You do what I do myself when I am more unreasonable
than I should be.

>> But in this, I am probably more
>> unreasonable than I should be!
>
> Yup.
>
This last little snip of yours (to which you reply "Yup")
is rather unfair and manages to completely alter my meaning.
Nothing is beneath a fundamentalist to argue and do in the cause eh?

dorayme

[Back to original message]