Re: My Friday-Before-Labor-Day Diatribe [Was: Frame document structure]

Murray Altheim (
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:43:50 -0500

Message-Id: <v02110102ae4d1d4a68ce@[]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:43:50 -0500
To: "David Perrell" <>
From: (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: My Friday-Before-Labor-Day Diatribe [Was: Frame document structure]

David Perrell <> writes:
>Murray Altheim wrote:
>> I have yet to see the "necessity" of frames. IMO it's another
>> whiz-bang gizmo that makes people feel their documents are more
>> sophisticated. And we have spent entirely too much energy on
>> whiz-bang gizmos at the expense of creating a Web capable of
>> building an information infrastructure for our expanding
>>knowledge base.
>Perhaps not necessary, but methinks desirable. I'm working on an
>interactive form at . Except
>for IMGs, it's a single html file. [...]

I couldn't load that document, as I got a JavaScript Runtime error:

   [Line: 266] Object doesn't support this property or method.

which then crashed my copy of Internet Explorer 3.0.

>All computation and content
>generation are done client-side, so Results and Help are immediate.
>This could have been done without frames and Javascript, but consider
>the time and bandwidth eaten up by repeatedly querying the server for
>results. Not an excercise in whiz-bangery, this just seemed the most
>efficient way to do the job. The same approach could benefit
>non-commercial enterprises.

Your use of whiz-bang not only kept me from using the document, but crashed
my application. Consider the time, bandwidth, and frustration caused by
this. And consider the longevity of any similar document: maybe six months?

You seem to be making my point for me.

Have a good weekend all.


     Murray Altheim, Program Manager
     Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
     email: <>
     http:  <>
            "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."