>This is, IMO, no different from disabling frames (separating presentation
The theory of HTML, seperating presentation for content, is fine. The
practice doesn't often match the theory. HTML has been twisted a great deal
in the last 3 years. Many sites use images or imagemaps for text, or
ActiveX/Flash/Shockwave, which ignore any user presentation choices.
inseperable from the content. Should they be seperate? sure. Are they on
many sites? no.
>RE the contention that "it's work" to build a site to spec -- so what? It's
work to write >good copy. It's work to produce a great TV spot. It's work to
design an award winning >publication with PageMaker. Why should the web be
My point is that the web is the *same* in this respect as the other forms
you state. Most publications are far from award winning. Most TV spots are
violently far from great. It takes more work and more talent to achieve
these things. As long as it takes signifigantly more work to provide
noframes support, and only a small minority desire it, most websites won't
do it. Should they? sure. Will they? no. It's simple economy of their
resources. I partially blame the tools - it should be made easy for authors
to provide this support, as should providing ALT tags and other important
From: Gill, Kathy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 3:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Frames pros and cons
Hi, Scott --
Going back to the concept of HTML as content specific, ie, what's a
"heading," what's "body text", what's citation -- I find the frameset thing
contrary to this in it is "presentation" oriented. Even more so than "font"
-- because I can override the designer choice of fonts. I can select my own
link colors & background. I can disable CSS (more presentation). This is,
IMO, no different from disabling frames (separating presentation from
Plus, handhelds can't read frames yet -- they're "text viewers" and a
growing % of web access is with them, particularly for intranet, business
Going out on a prediction limb, I believe that US authors who disdain the
proper use of <noframes> *will* eventually find themselves violating
regs/laws if their sites are public (ie, built with taxpayer $) or corporate
providing required info for employees -- ADA, I have to believe, will
And a lot less expensive to make a web site universally accessible than to
add an elevator to a building that only has stairs.
RE the contention that "it's work" to build a site to spec -- so what? It's
work to write good copy. It's work to produce a great TV spot. It's work to
design an award winning publication with PageMaker. Why should the web be
I still cannot fathom why a site designed to SELL something persists in
ticking off a significant portion of its users.
> Kathy E. Gill
> From: Scott Berkun[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> My own opinion as someone that used to work on Internet Explorer, was that
> it's a very slipperly slope to offer options disabling HTML specified
> features. It's a small subset of the user base that understands these
> options (authors), and a further subset that would want to use them. I've
> asked the Mac team why they did it and have not heard back yet. I can
> it was a request from savy Mac IE users or developer on the team istelf,
> that they went and implemented.
> No argument on the problems with the frames spec - but I'm not sure
> the spec would signifigantly increase the number of authors that follow
> It's work to go and write the nonframes version, and no tool I've seen
> encourages or assists authors to do it. If it's more work to follow "full
> spec" most authors won't do it. Some terrifying percentage of HTML pages
> broken in signifigant ways relative to the HTML 3.2 or 4.0 spec, but
> NSCP and IE are tolerant of bad HTML, they remain unchanged.
> In good news, IE5 solves some of the end-user problem with frames. It now
> remembers the state of each frame, so if you navigate for awhile within a
> frameset and then add it to favorites, we do the right thing.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gill, Kathy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 10:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]; Scott Berkun
> Subject: RE: Frames pros and cons
> Hi, Scott -- I guess I have to disagree here.
> Frames are part of the spec but with caveats -- and some of us wish that
> caveats were more strictly required. Most framed sites do no meet
> recommended code -- ie, they don't provide alternative entry (proper use
> IF the site is written to full spec -- it doesn't matter if frames are
> "turned off" because the end user will enter thru the NoFrames
> Following your logic below -- why the dickens would MSFT provide this
> functionality on MSIE 4.x for the Mac and NOT for the PC? That seems very
> Also -- this is NOT the same thing as turning off tables -- HTML 4.0
> suggest that authors provide alternatives (except they encourage the use
> CSS and if you use tables for heavy formatting that you provide plain text
> access to the content). Tables may scramble content, but the don't make
> inaccessible. Improper framed sites do.
> > Kathy E. Gill
> > From: Scott Berkun[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Nielsen has a good summary on the dangers and potential benefits at
> > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html.
> > I don't believe Win9x/IE has ever provided the ability to turn frames
> > Frames are part of the W3C HTML specification: it'd be the equivalent of
> > allowing the user to turn <Table> or <BR> off. I don't think NSCP ever
> > allowed this either, but I'm less confident about that.
> > -Scott
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liz Gee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 1:26 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Frames pros and cons
> > Does anyone have a summary of any frames / no frames threads?
> > Have there been any lately?
> > F. Scott Ophof,
> > Can you not use it because your browser doesn't support it, or for other
> > reasons?
> > I am currently on a no-framed project, and am enjoying it. However
> > we use frames or not is dependent on our client. The browser support we
> > have is for IE 3 & 4 and Netscape 3&4 only, all of which support frames.
> > Kathy,
> > How do you turn off Frames in I.E. 4? Can you do it in I.E.3 as well?
> > Elizabeth Gee
> > Human Factors Engineer
> > Corillian Corporation
> > (503)526-5241
> > [log in to unmask]
> > ----------------------
> > The only thing we can be sure of, is Change. -I Ching
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gill, Kathy [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 12:15 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Links (was Re: guidelines for tooltips
> > Also, given that Opera (Windows) nd MSIE4 (at least Mac version) each
> > the end user to "turn off" frames .... building sites that are
> > becomes increasinly crucial.
> > Add another voice to the ALT tag chorus.
> > Finally, Nua reported today that studioarchetype did a study of what
> > fostered trust on ecommerce sites -- ease of use [ie easy to navigate]
> > there:
> > "Once a sense of security has been established, a visitor's focus
> > to the five signifiers of trust: brand, navigation, fulfillment,
> > presentation and technology. "
> > http://www.studioarchetype.com/cheskin/html/findings.html
> > > Kathy E. Gill
> > >
> > > From: F. Scott Ophof[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > >
> > > And frames-only sites might as well not exist, as far as I'm
> > > Not to say that that is bad, but simply that if I can't browse such a
> > > site, then I need not remember its existance.
> > >
> > >