Frames

	Home Register Search Help Login

Sponsors

Shopping Cart Software
Ecommerce software integrated into Frontpage, Dreamweaver and Golive templates. No monthly fees and available in ASP and PHP versions.

Website Templates
We also have a wide selection of Dreamweaver, Expression Web and Frontpage templates as well as webmaster tools and CSS layouts.

Frontpage website templates
Creative Website Templates for FrontPage, Dreamweaver, Flash, SwishMax

Search Forums

Recent Posts

Todays Posts
Most Active posts
Posts since last visit
My Recent Posts
Mark posts read

Frames

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> Web Development >> Accessibility >> Frames

Page: [1]


dpf Posts: 7121 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline	Frames - 3/4/2006 15:09:46 are there accessibilty issues with frames sites? _____________________________ Dan


d a v e Posts: 4086 Joined: 7/24/2002 From: England (but live in Finland now) Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/4/2006 15:25:04 some here possibly? http://apptools.com/rants/framesevil.php also i would have thought that navigation between frames could be confusing _____________________________ David Prescott Gekko web design (in reply to dpf)


spitfire Posts: 424 Joined: 8/6/2005 Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/4/2006 19:01:21 Frames/iframes are best avoided. If you want the page to follow the minimum accessibility level, there should be a <noframe> alternative http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frames Includes surely must be the modern alternative to frames, shared borders or whatever. (in reply to d a v e)


womble Posts: 5526 Joined: 3/14/2005 From: Living on the edge Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/5/2006 5:45:44 With Uncle B on this one. Includes are the way to go. The time you waste creating your inacessible frames site, then the nice accessible <noframes> version (which doesn't just say "you need a browser that supports frames to view this site"), you could use creating your includes and then going on to do something else much more interesting than <noframes>. Like they say, time is money... _____________________________ ~~ "A cruel god ain't no god at all" ~~ (in reply to spitfire)


Donkey Posts: 3869 Joined: 11/13/2001 From: Blackfield United Kingdom Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/5/2006 11:40:52 Includes don't replace the most useul feature of frames - the ability to have your navigation always on screen in one frame while you scroll and link to content pages in another frame. You can use CSS positioning (position: fixed) but it doesn't work in good old IE (however there is an other way of achieving the effect in IE - search OF for details). If you always have a no frames page and duplicate all the content within it, is that not a good compromise? _____________________________ I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't. Samuel Clemens (in reply to womble)


spitfire Posts: 424 Joined: 8/6/2005 Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/5/2006 16:29:38 quote: ORIGINAL: Donkey If you always have a no frames page and duplicate all the content within it, is that not a good compromise? I would say it's about as good a compromise as text-only alternative pages. Try to duplicate anything and errors, omissions and just plain out-of-dateness will creep in to one or other of the copies. Stick with the 'one version of the truth' and if the design/usability of the site absolutely demands a navigation panel visible at all times when scrolling the contents, use css-p of which there are a number of cross-browser compatible examples. This opinion may be 10 years old, but it is valid, although thankfully frames are not nearly as prevalent on the web as they were w a y back then. Note the problems with bookmarking, printing and search engines. Personal opinion - I don't like the kind of visual see-saw effect you get with frames or css emulated frames anyway. (in reply to Donkey)


Donkey Posts: 3869 Joined: 11/13/2001 From: Blackfield United Kingdom Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/5/2006 19:05:34 My personal view (as a user of websites) is that sites with the navigation fixed on the screen are easier to use because; 1) I can navigate with fewer clicks 2) I am always aware of the navigation options available and can therefore navigate in a more intuitive way. and 3) I don't have the annoyance of being forced to scroll to the top of the page every time I want to go anywhere. Logic suggests that this makes the site more accessible to the vast majority of users. _____________________________ I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't. Samuel Clemens (in reply to spitfire)


womble Posts: 5526 Joined: 3/14/2005 From: Living on the edge Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 7:04:09 Possibly (and this doesn't mean I agree with it), more useable for the reasons you listed Donkey, but certainly not more accessible. I'd say apart from the accessibility issues, the biggest problem with frames from a useability perspective is the problem of bookmarking a specific page - may be more of an issue to some users than others, but still a big useability minus in my book. _____________________________ ~~ "A cruel god ain't no god at all" ~~ (in reply to Donkey)


spitfire Posts: 424 Joined: 8/6/2005 Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 7:20:24 In view of the lack of the presence of the OP, anyone get the impression this is a set up? (in reply to womble)


caz Posts: 3520 Joined: 10/10/2001 From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 8:29:09 quote: ORIGINAL: spitfire In view of the lack of the presence of the OP, anyone get the impression this is a set up? My thoughts exactly... _____________________________ Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard. Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic. (in reply to spitfire)


dpf Posts: 7121 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 9:00:16 quote: In view of the lack of the presence of the OP ..sorry - been traveling a bit. I am dealing with a company on a project and happened to notice that their web site claims they are a prominent member of a committee to boost "508" accessibility and it struck me that their usage of frames on their own site went against the grain - i should have said that up front - im well aware of the overall negatives of frames - were in not for the fact that i have a maintenance contract on a frames sites (that i didn't make) , i wouldn't understand them at all. i was just looking for some "ammo" on the 508 handicap accessibility issue _____________________________ Dan (in reply to spitfire)


spitfire Posts: 424 Joined: 8/6/2005 Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 9:25:54 Hi Dan If the link to WCAG Frames I gave earlier doesn't help your 508 cause, maybe something that touches the pockets of your clients will. This article explains the maintenance = $ problems of compliance by using <noframes> and also goes on to talk about how some search engines have problems indexing frames sites and can, sometimes, offer searchers a load of gobbledegook. The article is eight years old, but the points are still valid and possibly increasingly so as older sites become due for a re-build. Edit: OOPS you've got a maintenance contract on a frames site, so you probably don't want to bother with the second para < Message edited by spitfire -- 3/6/2006 9:50:26 > (in reply to dpf)


caz Posts: 3520 Joined: 10/10/2001 From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 9:50:11 I retract my allegations unreservedly...it would be so unlike you to be provocative, wouldn't it _____________________________ Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard. Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic. (in reply to dpf)


dpf Posts: 7121 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 10:28:17 quote: it would be so unlike you to be provocative, wouldn't it oh yes coitenly - i am so non confrontational..hehe _____________________________ Dan (in reply to caz)


caz Posts: 3520 Joined: 10/10/2001 From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 10:33:34 <hehe> _____________________________ Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard. Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic. (in reply to dpf)


womble Posts: 5526 Joined: 3/14/2005 From: Living on the edge Status: offline	RE: Frames - 3/6/2006 10:45:54 <hehe> indeedly _____________________________ ~~ "A cruel god ain't no god at all" ~~ (in reply to caz)

Page: [1]

All Forums >> Web Development >> Accessibility >> Frames

Page: [1]

Jump to: 1

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts