Frames-Oriented Question

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should be
enough said, hm?

Now my question. I'm interested in changing my pages in order that a
three-tier control process goes into place. It would be like the following
from top to bottom frames:

1. Title Banner frame. Holds logo.
2. Icon Menu frame. Has icons for sections of the site.
3. Tab Submenu frame. Has tabs for subsections of the sections selected by
the Icon Menu #2.
4. Contents frame. Shows content selected via the Tab Submenu frame. Also
navigated with bookmarks inside each contents page shown - only within
single page if at all.
5. Footer frame. Holds clickable buttons for supported causes (like the EFF
for instance).

In my first conceptualization of this, the Title Banner always stays the
same. In the second revision, it changes depending on which item off the
Icon Menu is chosen.

The Icon Menu controls what is displayed in the Tab Submenu. In the second
revision this menu affects what is shown in the Title Banner frame.

The Tab Submenu frame has tabs representing subsections of the sections
delineated by the Icon Menu. For instance, I have a Gallery chosen at Icon
Menu level. There are subsections of it, one for each type of cartoon to be
viewed ("Business", "Computers", "Showbiz", "Editorial" and so on), and the
selection of each causes a different contact sheet of thumbnails to be
viewable in the Contents frame.

The Contents frame shows whatever is selected, first, in the Tab Submenu
frame. In the case of the Gallery icon, and its attendant Submenu of
cartoon types, a contact sheet of thumbnails is shown in the Contents frame.
Clicking on the thumbnails of course shows the graphic-in-question, with
navigation buttons to go backwards and forwards in the set of graphics shown
in the contact sheet.

The Footer frame stays the same at all times.

The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First, sections
of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
bookmark use a dark comedy. Navigation has a potential for complicating out
of the realm of manageability whenever I add anything at this point. Tabs
are becoming more of a standard paradigm all the time, and compact enough on
the screen to be quite attractive for use.

Second, utilizing this structure makes it easier to manage, because less of
it changes as a result of simply adding a new song or cartoon to the
selectables involved.

Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here. Thanks
in advance.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

but... but... but... :-(

 

[Steve Pugh]

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should be
enough said, hm?

This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
them.

Now my question.

In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
actually is.

[snip descriptions of frames]

If you really, really want to use frames then I'd advise setting up a
top level frameset that contains your frames (banner, icons, tabs,
content, footer). The icons will all have target="_top" and thus will
load new top level framesets (thus making at least this level
bookmarkable) and allowing new content to be loaded into banner, tabs
and content in one go.
The tabs will all have target="content" and will just load new
content.

The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First, sections
of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
bookmark use a dark comedy.

Sorry, but what does this maen. Frames are what makes it impossible to
bookmark sites. So how does a non-frame site become a 'dark comedy'
for bookmarking?

Navigation has a potential for complicating out
of the realm of manageability whenever I add anything at this point.

If the navigation is managed via server side includes it's no more
complex to manage than frames without all the problems for the end
user.

Tabs
are becoming more of a standard paradigm all the time, and compact enough on
the screen to be quite attractive for use.

But there's nothing about tabs that forces the uses of frames, is
there?

Second, utilizing this structure makes it easier to manage, because less of
it changes as a result of simply adding a new song or cartoon to the
selectables involved.

The same structure can be managed without using frames at all. You've
created a hierarchical structure for your site - use that hieracrchy
to define which navigation gets included by SSI, PHP, ASP or whatever.

Every page belongs to a section (the icons) which determines which
banner and tabs are shown, and that's really it - one variable
controls pretty much everything. Anything extra (such as highlighting
the current tab) can easily be added on top.

Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here. Thanks
in advance.

Not using frames is _good_ advice. Ignore it if you like, but I'm
still puzzled as to why you posted in the first place. Your message
came across as "This is what I'm going to do and I don't care what
anyone says about it." Did you actually have some question you wanted
to ask?

Steve

 

[Spartanicus]

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

Frames are bad.
Don't use them.

 

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
them.


In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
actually is.

Go back to school then.

 

[Kris]

Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.

I'll waste them somewhere else then.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Go back to school then.

Please quote whatever your question was. You described the data
structure you were going to use and gave some wishy-washy
justifications for it, but didn't actually ask any questions.

At the moment, based on your attitude all I can assume is that you
don't actually want any help, just to strut about a bit.

Steve

 

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

I'll waste them somewhere else then.

Good idea. I'm interested in more than a narrow path of information.

 

[Kris]

I'll waste them somewhere else then.

Good idea. I'm interested in more than a narrow path of information.[/QUOTE]

Great. You keep your eyes wiiide open in that direction there, then I
can killfile you and continue my life, ok?

 

[Toby A Inkster]

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

Frames
suck.

 

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should be
enough said, hm?

This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
them.

Now my question.

In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
actually is.

[snip descriptions of frames]

If you really, really want to use frames then I'd advise setting up a
top level frameset that contains your frames (banner, icons, tabs,
content, footer). The icons will all have target="_top" and thus will
load new top level framesets (thus making at least this level
bookmarkable) and allowing new content to be loaded into banner, tabs
and content in one go.
The tabs will all have target="content" and will just load new
content.

The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First, sections
of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
bookmark use a dark comedy.

Sorry, but what does this maen. Frames are what makes it impossible to
bookmark sites. So how does a non-frame site become a 'dark comedy'
for bookmarking?

I wish to migrate away from the model that uses a single-level menu calling
subpages, and I don't want to use drop-downs. Top-level model tends to
require bookmarks for subnavigation without reloading the entire menu
(insofar as caching is concerned, but still a reloading problem, yes?) I'd
also like to separate the content from the interface a bit more, with the
exception of the obvious hyperlink/text aspects.

If the navigation is managed via server side includes it's no more
complex to manage than frames without all the problems for the end
user.

I prefer not to deal with server-sided includes until it becomes evident
that redundant stuff is being produced as a side effect of the redesign.
What about possible lag time being introduced on server-side includes,
though?

But there's nothing about tabs that forces the uses of frames, is
there?

I don't feel required to go with 'em, but in order to avoid the menu/page
reloading, and go to a more modular design.

The same structure can be managed without using frames at all. You've
created a hierarchical structure for your site - use that hieracrchy
to define which navigation gets included by SSI, PHP, ASP or whatever.

Every page belongs to a section (the icons) which determines which
banner and tabs are shown, and that's really it - one variable
controls pretty much everything. Anything extra (such as highlighting
the current tab) can easily be added on top.


Not using frames is _good_ advice. Ignore it if you like, but I'm
still puzzled as to why you posted in the first place. Your message
came across as "This is what I'm going to do and I don't care what
anyone says about it." Did you actually have some question you wanted
to ask?

No, it was "this is what I would like to do, and what are your thoughts
about controlling frame content from other frames, in perhaps a multi-level
control interface?" I anticipated the anti-frames snaps by the other
flat-out no-explanation "frames suck" comments made to other folks' queries
about frames handling. What kind of development environment is it where all
people know is that some things are "bad" and shouldn't be used? It would
be more helpful to explain to the asker of such queries WHY they think
"frames are bad". Frankly the last time I'd heard negative press about 'em
it was in the days before all browsers handled frames.

But I suppose it didn't come out that way, now did it? My apologies. And
thanks for the response.

 

[Mark Parnell]

It would be more helpful to explain to the asker of such queries WHY
they think "frames are bad".

That's what the links do, if you take the time to read them. It is
simply much easier (and better for other Usenetters) to post links
rather than trying to explain the whole thing in one post.

In case you do actually want to read about some of the problems with
frames, here are some of those links:

http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzovic/tom/web/frames.html
http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/
http://www.google.com/webmasters/2.html (see under "Your page uses
frames")

 

[Mark Parnell]

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

As a web author, I couldn't care less about frames. I prefer not to use
them myself, but hey, whatever.

As a user, I *hate* frames. They really frustrate me. And I know lots of
others who feel the same. Is that really the reaction you are looking
for in your visitors?

 

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

As a web author, I couldn't care less about frames. I prefer not to use
them myself, but hey, whatever.

As a user, I *hate* frames. They really frustrate me. And I know lots of
others who feel the same. Is that really the reaction you are looking
for in your visitors?

Actually I find that most bad frames pages are badly implemented and
maintained frames pages, especially in the realm of cleaning up after
themselves. Did I cover all of it or is there something else?

 

[Gwilym Calon]

[snip, snip, snip]

Guys, guys.... c'mon.... What is it that looks like a troll, walks like a troll,
and talks like a troll?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Revd. Norle Enturbulata:

... It would be more helpful to explain to the asker of such
queries WHY they think "frames are bad".

Ok. Here's the scenario.

I find your site. Let's say you have a hundred pages or so. I read
for, oh, twenty minutes and I find a page about something I want to
read (or buy!) but I don't have the time for it just now. Wifey just
called dinner is ready.

I can't bookmark this page to come back to after dinner; I can only
bookmark your main URL. I will have to spend another twenty (well,
maybe ten) minutes trying to find the page again. Nah, I'll just go
back to Google and look for another site that sells the same thing.

 

[David Dorward]

That's what the links do, if you take the time to read them. It is
simply much easier (and better for other Usenetters) to post links
rather than trying to explain the whole thing in one post.

^
again and again

 

[David Dorward]

I prefer not to deal with server-sided includes until it becomes evident
that redundant stuff is being produced as a side effect of the redesign.
What about possible lag time being introduced on server-side includes,
though?

Negligible, and certainly less then the lag time introduced by using bullet
proof frames unless the user has a very fast connection and you have a very
slow CPU. Even then you can preprocess to generate static files.

 

[Spartanicus]

Ok. Here's the scenario.

I can't bookmark this page to come back to after dinner;

You can when frames are properly implemented (which is rare), frames
cause other issues that cannot be worked around.

 

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

Quoth the raven named Revd. Norle Enturbulata:


Ok. Here's the scenario.

I find your site. Let's say you have a hundred pages or so. I read
for, oh, twenty minutes and I find a page about something I want to
read (or buy!) but I don't have the time for it just now. Wifey just
called dinner is ready.

I can't bookmark this page to come back to after dinner; I can only
bookmark your main URL. I will have to spend another twenty (well,
maybe ten) minutes trying to find the page again. Nah, I'll just go
back to Google and look for another site that sells the same thing.

Okay, I'll include a "bookmark this page" script. End of problem. What
else?