- From: Jim Taylor <JHTaylor@videodiscovery.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:58:01 -0800
- To: www-html@w3.org
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>
Received on Monday, 12 February 1996 22:57:08 UTC