- From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:09:04 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 03:01:47PM +0800, Harry Woodrow wrote:
> To get something that looks like frames is not that hard probably but is it
> as easy as it is with frames to have a standard header and side navigation
> and also allow users to include their own content in the main frame.
I think we need to give consideration to two separate issues here. It is
quite easy, a full example is provided in the specification, to create a
layout that looks and behaves like a framed one by using CSS 2.
That, however, is a purely visual point. Including 'their own' content in
the 'main frame' is another - but there are various methods of achieving
this:
- CGI (alt. PHP/JSP/ASP/SSI) to do so online and on-the-fly
- Pre-processing to do so offline and 'statically'.
This would yield a document which behaves in a way consistent with the
nature of the web, and which is easily bookmarked, printed, etc., whilst
at the same time looking and behaving like frames.
Personally I find only one drawback with the CSS 2 approach: IE has so
far failed to support fixed positioning. This, however, is a minor point
in my book.
My answer to the above is: yes, it is quite easy to create a non-framed
solution that looks and behaves like frames; and definetly as easy as a
framed solution would be. You do, after all, get to throw out all the
extra luggage that the traditional frames demand of you.
- <noframes> ? Automatic.
- Bookmarking ? Not to worry; works as-is.
- Printing ? Exactly the same.
- Search-, Braille, Voice- and text-browsers ? No problems.
This doesn't even touch on the reduced maintenance and bugtracking time
spent with a simpler and more logical site structure.
--
- Tina H.
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 03:52:22 UTC