W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2000

RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:45:47 -0000
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB53F3F9C@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
> From:	Roy.Gardiner@natwest.com [SMTP:Roy.Gardiner@natwest.com]
> Some sites have complicated parts, largely static (e.g. the navigation
> bars). It drives me nuts when they slowly rebuild the whole page every
> time
	It drives me nuts when a site takes a long time to animate
	a splash screen then you find that the only link on it
	is javascript:go() and you are playing safe by rejecting
	all scripting (or you are not using a Windows GUI browser).
	If I have any choice in the matter, I go onto the next
	search engine hit when this happens.

> because they don't use frames, and if they waste too much of my time I
> leave. Is there another way or ways of keeping part of the page
> unrefreshed
> that does not use frames? If not, what's wrong with frames? We are saving
> our readers' time.
	A lot of the problem in many web sites is that they are
	far too complex viewed from the point of view of
	communicating information.  A sidebar with proper use
	of style sheets is probably less the 500 bytes, but if
	you start sending down javascript to create dynamic pull
	down menus, it can take a long time to load each part of
	a page.

	However, the W3C people need to understand that Natwest's
	site is typical of UK blue chip sites and is what content
	providers want to do with their web authoring language, and
	that IE/Netscape HTML is, de facto, that language.

	PS I have virtually no influence over my employer's site!
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 14:50:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC