Re: help with frames

Jim Taylor (JHTaylor@videodiscovery.com)
Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:58:01 -0800


Message-Id: <s11f9c18.069@videodiscovery.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:58:01 -0800
From: Jim Taylor <JHTaylor@videodiscovery.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject:  Re: help with frames

irons@swell.hampshire.edu (scheckie irons) says:
>I am consistently astonished that people exist who think frames are a
>desirable solution to anything, let alone worth investing the effort to
>circumvent netscape's kludgery.  That they do exist is a shining
testament
>to netscape's PR, and to the unfortunate inability of this particular group
>of webmasters to think past trends.

Frames invoke the same passionate disgust in me, but it's really not their
fault. :-)  What I mean is that there is nothing intrinsically bad about
frames (other than added complexity). After all, they've popped up in all
major GUIs, and for good reasons. The problem lies in Netscape's
abysmal interface to them, and HTML authors' abuse of them. The fact
that Netscape's "back" command jumps all the way back to the page
before the first page of frames, and that the "forward" command then
takes you to the first page of frames (thus losing all track of the 30 or so
pages you may have viewed inside a frame) is maddening and
debilitating. The unobvious and unintuitive "back in frame" feature just
makes it worse. With a little interface and specification cleanup and a
little maturing of HTML authors (who hopefully will stop using features
just because they're there and they're cool), frames will become a great
asset.

________________________________________________________________
Jim Taylor, Director of Information Technology
<mailto:jhtaylor@videodiscovery.com>
Videodiscovery, Inc. - Multimedia Education for Science and Math
Seattle, WA, 206-285-5400 <http://www.videodiscovery.com/vdyweb>