HTML 4.01 Transitional versus Frameset

[Jonathan N. Little]

Odd. My copy of Firefox uses Shift-click for "open in new window".
Version-dependent? Configurable?

Mozilla|SeaMonkey Shift-click by default is "save link target as..."

Firefox is is "open in a new window"

http://lesliefranke.com/files/reference/firefoxcheatsheet.html
Mozilla Firefox Cheat Sheet

And as with anything dealing with Firefox, if your find yourself saying
"Gee I wish Firefox could..." Check for an extension:

http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=254/
keyconfig 20050908.1 - The Extensions Mirror

Yes. (That's actually what Opera does with Shift-Click.)

 

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:46:46 -0400 from Jonathan N. Little

Mozilla|SeaMonkey Shift-click by default is "save link target as..."

Firefox is is "open in a new window"

Thanks for the correction. I use Mozilla at home and Firefox at work.
I had noticed that an extra window popped up when I Shift-clicked to
do a download, but since I also got the download prompt I thought it
was a bug.

http://lesliefranke.com/files/reference/firefoxcheatsheet.html

That page says Ctrl-Click opens in background and Ctrl-Shift-Click
opens in foreground. It's the opposite on my Firefox. Did I configure
it the other way and forget I had done so, or is there an error on
the page?

Is there any way, in Firefox, to do a Save Target As without right-
clicking and selecting from a menu? I'm very bad at fine mouse
movements and try to do as little as possible with point-and-click.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:46:46 -0400 from Jonathan N. Little


Thanks for the correction. I use Mozilla at home and Firefox at work.
I had noticed that an extra window popped up when I Shift-clicked to
do a download, but since I also got the download prompt I thought it
was a bug.


That page says Ctrl-Click opens in background and Ctrl-Shift-Click
opens in foreground. It's the opposite on my Firefox. Did I configure
it the other way and forget I had done so, or is there an error on
the page?

Is there any way, in Firefox, to do a Save Target As without right-
clicking and selecting from a menu? I'm very bad at fine mouse
movements and try to do as little as possible with point-and-click.

Did you check the extension link???

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1537/
functions for keyconfig :: Mozilla Add-ons :: Add Features to Mozilla
Software

Make whatever you want.

 

[dorayme]

Firefox and Mozilla use Shift-Click for "save link target as...".
Ctrl-click opens the link within a new tab rather than a separate
window, a very nice feature. (Firefox does this natively; Mozilla
needs the tabbed browsing extension or Multizilla extension.)

FF uses Control click to bring up a context menu while Command
click opens links in new tabs. Mozilla will bring up a new window
for Command click. These settings are configurable. It is all
good stuff. Yes, this is Mac.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>,
dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:41:52 remote, seen in w.authoring.html, Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950

Frames mess up your accessibility and search engine rankings - even the
noframes content is largely ignored in my experience. Google for "Different
and yet indifferent", then have a look at www.fieldcraft.biz/topics

Naive statement.

Frame capability is harmless.

Forcing frames is deleterious.

A site can be designed to be fully usable without frames, but also to
have, at the reader's request, an index (or other) frame. See via sig
line 3.

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup and its FAQ.

 

[Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>,
dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:41:52 remote, seen in w.authoring.html, Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950


Naive statement.

Perhaps. Like I later said, I may well have done something to deter the
search engines on my framed pages, but I am yet to find out exactly what
that is...

Frame capability is harmless.

Agreed - only client-side scripting presents a risk. Even if you whitelist a
site (given you've disabled all client-side scripting by default, IE in the
"Internet Zone") and they load a page from another site in a frame - the
scripts from the white-listed site will run but the scripts from the other
site loaded in the frame will not run unless that other site is whitelisted
as well.

Forcing frames is deleterious.

No doubt because it requires client-side scripting. There might be some
server-side methods but I wonder if this could present problems for some
brail readers or vision impaired visitors?

A site can be designed to be fully usable without frames,

Plenty are, such as:
www.geoceanis.com
www.fieldcraft.com.au
www.qaisoft.com
However, I'm not so sure that the colour schemes are not deleterious! :^)

but also to
have, at the reader's request, an index (or other) frame. See via sig
line 3.

Is there still a market amongst visitors for frame-set functionality? What
percentages of this year's visitors to http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk went on
to spend more than thrity seconds at http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/toc.htm
or http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/tic.htm?

BTW I think your site map is one of the best I've seen. Although I'd be
inclined to give, "Index to Pages within this Site" a page of its own. Also
I'd be inclined to give the rest of this index the same treatment as you've
given index items under the headings, "Astronomy & Astronautics", "4.
Computer Usage", "5. Date & Time", "8. Europe", & Particularly "13.3
Directories". The explanatory content makes the link targets much clearer
and I've heard that explanatory content attached to the links is good for
your search rankings... I noticed you are using formatted lists. Perhaps
some headings might improve search engine rankings (even if they have to go
outside the list stucture). I've read that a mix of noraml text and headings
is good for search engine rankings - but that was a couple of years back...

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>,
dated Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:18:29 remote, seen in w.authoring.html, Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950

Perhaps. Like I later said, I may well have done something to deter the
search engines on my framed pages, but I am yet to find out exactly what
that is...


Agreed - only client-side scripting presents a risk. Even if you whitelist a
site (given you've disabled all client-side scripting by default, IE in the
"Internet Zone") and they load a page from another site in a frame - the
scripts from the white-listed site will run but the scripts from the other
site loaded in the frame will not run unless that other site is whitelisted
as well.

We were not discussing that sort of harm; just accessibility / usability
for humans and search engines.

No doubt because it requires client-side scripting. There might be some
server-side methods but I wonder if this could present problems for some
brail readers or vision impaired visitors?

It does not require client-side scripting (as in javascript & vbscript);
just HTML.

Is there still a market amongst visitors for frame-set functionality? What
percentages of this year's visitors to http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk went on
to spend more than thrity seconds at http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/toc.htm
or http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/tic.htm?

They are only intended to be shown in frames, and frames only appear on
request. Providing the capability adds very little overhead. My type
of account does not provide that sort of usage statistics.

A small fraction of the bytes on the site are there for the convenience
of myself as author when working with the local master copy (for which
the copy on the server is also an off-site backup).

BTW I think your site map is one of the best I've seen. Although I'd be
inclined to give, "Index to Pages within this Site" a page of its own.

No, I want those who see the Index to be in possession of the other
material.

Also
I'd be inclined to give the rest of this index the same treatment as you've
given index items

ISTM that a distinct style helps.