«

[_r.u.s.s.]

Originally posted by plix+Mar 9 2006, 05:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Mar 9 2006, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> However, all you've done is explain how to use frames rather than why you'd want to. [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bobbin Threadbare@Mar 9 2006, 11:09 AM
How do you make a seperate table next to another one?[/quote]
...


btw the linking is the only disagreegment of frames(or sometimes is not) i know

Looks-wise the same thing can easily be accomplished with fixed positioning (which is a little tricky to get working in IE, but it's still quite possible)

well, in frames you dont have to be tricky and page doesnt have to reload after every click(this is great agreegment if one frame is something "big" to load)

and btw2 if someone want to see my old school project(dont look at photos, they are realy old=], iam not same fat as before ) its here,
i used frames, NO CSS and like it very much,just click on russ button
WARNING: check the page in IE, since i was very very beginner with internet and dint know that firefox doesnt support "\" but "/" in link

[plix]

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.+Mar 9 2006, 02:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (_r.u.s.s. @ Mar 9 2006, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

<!--QuoteBegin-Bobbin Threadbare@Mar 9 2006, 11:09 AM
How do you make a seperate table next to another one?

... [/b][/quote]
Frames are a very limiting answer to that question (since they'll screw up the page flow and are only useful if the "other" table is flush against one of the sides of the page). You can't be seriously suggesting that the way to do horizontal alignment / block flow properly -- or even sanely -- is using frames?

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (_r.u.s.s.)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>well, in frames you dont have to be tricky[/b]

You don't have to be tricky for frames to work in IE; they simply doesn't work at all for any browser which doesn't support them.

<!--QuoteBegin-_r.u.s.s.
page doesnt have to reload after every click (this is great agreegment if one frame is something "big" to load)[/quote]
If the frame is something "big" to load other than text it's cached anyway. However, if you have an enormous amount of text data in a navigation frame it's probably time to rethink your navigation.

As for all these examples, I've yet to see any of you give me any sort of compelling reason with your examples why it justifies all the pitfalls. Aesthetics isn't a very good reason since none of those sites are particularly good looking. If you want a real example of a site which benefits visually from frames try k10k; just don't try and use it as an example (it's a design site and is going for visuals above all else, including usability).

[_r.u.s.s.]

Originally posted by plix+Mar 9 2006, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Mar 9 2006, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

...

Frames are a very limiting answer to that question (since they'll screw up the page flow and are only useful if the "other" table is flush against one of the sides of the page). You can't be seriously suggesting that the way to do horizontal alignment / block flow properly -- or even sanely -- is using frames? [/b][/quote]
why not?
by the way.. why do you mean by "<the "other" table is flush against one of the sides of the page>"

You don't have to be tricky for frames to work in IE; they simply doesn't work at all for any browser which doesn't support them.
[/b]

can you give me an example, which USED browser doesnt support frames?

<!--QuoteBegin-_r.u.s.s.

page doesnt have to reload after every click (this is great agreegment if one frame is something "big" to load)

If the frame is something "big" to load other than text it's cached anyway. However, if you have an enormous amount of text data in a navigation frame it's probably time to rethink your navigation.
[/quote]
wht if you want or need to have it?
dont tell me its not useful then!

As for all these examples, I've yet to see any of you give me any sort of compelling reason with your examples why it justifies all the pitfalls. Aesthetics isn't a very good reason since none of those sites are particularly good looking. If you want a real example of a site which benefits visually from frames try k10k; just don't try and use it as an example (it's a design site and is going for visuals above all else, including usability).

all the sites can be remade from php or css to frames and reversal

[_r.u.s.s.]

-sorry, delete this post, i was replying to another topic-

[Bobbin Threadbare]

Erm, don't worry, I figured out a way to do it. Now, for more help. Do you need to make anchors for "Back to top" links?

[plix]

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.@Mar 10 2006, 08:10 AM
why not?
by the way.. why do you mean by "<the "other" table is flush against one of the sides of the page>"

I mean that the "other table" (the "nav" box in his example, though there's not always going to one) needs to be right up against the side of the page (be it the top, the bottom, the left, or the right) or else you can't use frames to do it. That was just a single reason -- trying to emulate horizontal block flow with frames is obviously very stupid; that's just common sense.

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (_r.u.s.s.)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>can you give me an example, which USED browser doesnt support frames?[/b]

Mobile browsers. They're only going to be used more and more, and not being ready to support them is a bad idea.

<!--QuoteBegin-_r.u.s.s.

If the frame is something "big" to load other than text it's cached anyway. However, if you have an enormous amount of text data in a navigation frame it's probably time to rethink your navigation.

wht if you want or need to have it?
dont tell me its not useful then![/quote]
Excuse me, but that's an awfully stupid answer. You offer no real examples nor a defense of why any such examples are the right -- or even a reasonable -- way of doing things. Just saying "what if you need to have it?" is about as vague as you could be, and like I said: I've yet to see you offer any advantage other than speeding the loading time of enormous blocks of text (large enough to significantly impact the loading time of the page) which are held in persistent frames to speed loading time, a bit of a ridiculous example.

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.
all the sites can be remade from php or css to frames and reversal

What?

Assuming that you're trying to say that everything can be converted between frames and CSS, then yes, you're right. Then again, programs in any Turing-complete language can be converted to any other Turing-complete langauge. That doesn't mean I care to convert my PHP scripts to assembly.

Doing it the right way to begin with (not using frames) makes your site accessable, usable, etc, etc.

[_r.u.s.s.]

Originally posted by plix+Mar 10 2006, 03:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Mar 10 2006, 03:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-_r.u.s.s.@Mar 10 2006, 08:10 AM
why not?
by the way.. why do you mean by "<the "other" table is flush against one of the sides of the page>"

I mean that the "other table" (the "nav" box in his example, though there's not always going to one) needs to be right up against the side of the page (be it the top, the bottom, the left, or the right) or else you can't use frames to do it. That was just a single reason -- trying to emulate horizontal block flow with frames is obviously very stupid; that's just common sense.
[/b][/quote]
well, you actually can <_<

Mobile browsers.* They're only going to be used more and more, and not being ready to support them is a bad idea.

if they r going to be used more and more then explorers should develope too, by the way i have never seen even one browser, which doesnt support frames

Excuse me, but that's an awfully stupid answer. You offer no real examples nor a defense of why any such examples are the right -- or even a reasonable -- way of doing things. Just saying "what if you need to have it?" is about as vague as you could be, and like I said: I've yet to see you offer any advantage other than speeding the loading time of enormous blocks of text (large enough to significantly impact the loading time of the page) which are held in persistent frames to speed loading time, a bit of a ridiculous example.

man.. defence? is this a war?
i already gave you reason, page doesnt have to reload every time you click the link
all in all YOUR answer "if you have an enormous amount of text data in a navigation frame it's probably time to rethink your navigation" is very weak minded, since it is good reason. you know, not every frame is navigation bar and your answer is just misleading sh!t. +users with slow connection would appretiate frames, even if the loaded page is not very big
next its easy to use
next if you are using navigation bar you dont have scroll anywhere, its easy accesable and user friendly
and can you give me other disadvantage of frames?

..could you please stop flaming by the way?

[mika]

Originally posted by plix@Mar 9 2006, 06:00 PM
If you're going to use CSS to do it you might as well do it correctly and not use tables at all.* Tables are for tabular data, not for layout.* A pretty good rule of thumb when creating them is to ask yourself "Would this make sense if I put it into Excel?"

Frames may be misunderstood by some, but they're loathed for good reason.* They break printing, semantics, back/forward-button flow, hyperlinking, and a few other things.* I'd actually be quite interested in hearing what valid reason they do have for existing (and, in fact, have been eliminated in XHTML strict DTDs and exist only in the transitionals).

Actually frames were not removed from XHTML, just moved to XFrames (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xframes-20051012/).

One good reason I can think of using them is when you want to show another website, but keep a navigation back to your own site.

Also a pure CSS design is great and very honorable, but old browsers do not support the box model properly (some not at all), so you can't just say "Use CSS" because it really depends on the target user and the reach that the web site is going for.

[plix]

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.+Mar 10 2006, 11:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (_r.u.s.s. @ Mar 10 2006, 11:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>well, you actually can <_<[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-_r.u.s.s.

Mobile browsers.* They're only going to be used more and more, and not being ready to support them is a bad idea.

if they r going to be used more and more then explorers should develope too, by the way i have never seen even one browser, which doesnt support frames[/quote]
Oh, sure, because my phone with a 2" screen really benefits from a giant 300px frame (notwithstanding the fact that my phone's browser doesn't like frames). Regardless of if frames are supported on the mobile browsers or not (and they are on some), that doesn't change the fact that on those small screens a framed site is useless.

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.
man.. defence? is this a war?
i already gave you reason, page doesnt have to reload every time you click the link
all in all YOUR answer "if you have an enormous amount of text data in a navigation frame it's probably time to rethink your navigation" is very weak minded, since it is good reason. you know, not every frame is navigation bar and your answer is just misleading sh!t.

It's not a war, it's a debate. Guess what? In a debate you have to DEFEND YOUR ASSERTATIONS. Thus far you've offered nothing but "well you can use [frames]" and "what if you need them?" without actually offering any examples of when their use is necessary.

The one legitimate argument you have put forth (that they serve as an indirect text caching mechanism) you have yet to support with any sort of usage example. I'm well aware that not all frames are used for navigation purposes. And? Provide me with an example of a situation in which one persistent frame would contain a large amount of text (we're talking at least 10kb) -- I certainly can't think of one.

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (_r.u.s.s.)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>+users with slow connection would appretiate frames, even if the loaded page is not very big
next its easy to use
next if you are using navigation bar you dont have scroll anywhere, its easy accesable and user friendly
and can you give me other disadvantage of frames?[/b]

Users with slow connections only benefit if the frame is the aforementioned huge, persistent text document. Everything else (flash, images, etc) is cached by the browser.

As for usability, that's an easy retort. The following are articles by Jakob Nielsen, the man widely considered the authority on web usability.
Frames Suck Most of the Time
Original Top Ten Mistakes in Web-design (#1; still a problem, too)
Style Sheets vs. Frames

That's all without reiterating the same points I've made over the past page (which you still haven't addressed).

<!--QuoteBegin-_r.u.s.s.
..could you please stop flaming by the way?[/quote]
I haven't yet flamed you. I may have come off as rather abrasive, but that stems from my frustration with you offering nothing but platitudes as rationale in your defense of frames.

[plix]

Originally posted by mika+Mar 10 2006, 12:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mika @ Mar 10 2006, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Actually frames were not removed from XHTML, just moved to XFrames (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xframes-20051012/). [/b]

Quoting the draft you linked (note that it's only a draft, not a recommendation):

By being a separate application from XHTML..

Frames were actually never a part of any XHTML strict DTD (they existed in the 1.0 transitional frameset DTD). XFrames are not only entirely independent of XHTML and pretty much completely unsupported, they are vastly different from classic HTML frames. Frameset URI encoding, etc.

<!--QuoteBegin-mika
One good reason I can think of using them is when you want to show another website, but keep a navigation back to your own site.[/quote]
Doing that is pretty universally considered evil. Remember a few years ago when everyone had to add "break out of frames!" links to their site? When you lock up someone else's site in frames you not only screw up their navigation, scripting, and display; but you also are essentially stealing from them if your "navigation" frame contains ads (About.com and Google Images both still do this and it's still really irritating).

Originally posted by mika
Also a pure CSS design is great and very honorable, but old browsers do not support the box model properly (some not at all), so you can't just say "Use CSS" because it really depends on the target user and the reach that the web site is going for.

You can't say "Use Frames" then, either. Frames aren't supported in NS 1.0 and 2.0 and are almost completely unusable in NS 3. The difference between using CSS and using frames is that CSS will degrade properly. You still get all the information, it just might not be presented as well. That's a big step up from frames which'll give you either nothing at all, or a poorly worded "this site requires frames" message.

The box model issues you bring up are possible to overcome, too, it just requires the use of a few well-documented tricks. I've before marked up designs which used decorative "frames" by taking advantage of fixed positioning. The result is visually identical, but semantically sound and degrades exceptionally well.