Frames are no longer a good idea?

T

tarquinlinbin

Hi all,i was reading a recent computer mag and in a section on web
page authoring it said that most web design professional have now
ditched the concept of frames becuase they are too probelmatic with
regard to correctly dispalying content at different screen resolutions
etc..

I would have thought that few people run at as low as 800x600 these
days as it looks horrible.

If frames are no longer de rigeur,what other mechanism could i use for
dividing the browser into sections and displaying content in different
sections i.e just like frames but not frames!

I use FP 2002 and im not a web professional!!(sounds like an
alcoholics confession..!)

joe
 
S

Steve Easton

Actually 50% of viewers or higher
have their monitors set at 800 by 600.

--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer
 
K

Kevin Spencer

Frames became popular because of low connection speeds. By using a frameset,
certain content which is common to all pages could be placed in frames,
negating the necessity of having to download that content again. Frames are
problematic, though, particularly with regards to dynamic web applications.
Because connection speed is not much of an issue any more, frames have
generally been abandoned.

Your best bet, if you can upgrade to FrontPage 2003, is to use Dynamic Web
Templates for your "shared" content. If you can't upgrade, look at Shred
Borders and Themes.

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
Big things are made up
of lots of little things.
 
S

Steve Easton

Short sighted, or maybe the fact that
don't want to sit with their noses 12 inches
from the monitor so they can read the small
text.


--
Steve Easton
MS MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed..................
...............................with a computer
 
S

Steve Easton

Yep, they fog up my reading glasses too.

--
Steve Easton
MS MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed..................
...............................with a computer
 
S

swmbo

Thanks for the comments re frames. I just upgraded to fp2003 and will try the dynamic templates. (I'm new at this so it will be a learning experience!

Re low resolutions: I may be wrong, but I think the default on most computers sold is set at the lower resolution...like mine was. Less computer literate folk do not know yet how to change that resolution, thus the high numbers quoted. I now know how to change it, but wearing trifocals pretty much keeps me at 800X600
 
J

John Jansen \(MSFT\)

I thought this might be as good a place as any to post this link:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

I am not sure who actually created this site, but I think it has some really
good information (a Google search produced many such sites, all of which
have very similar numbers). Notice that < 800x600 is decreasing, but is
still a major section of the market.
 
S

Stefan B Rusynko

But all the stats ever show reliably is the Monitor resolution of users browsing the web
- not the Browser Window size they are using to browse in

Many users w/ higher resolution screens are now browsing at less than full screen, because they have IM or other visible apps also
running on their desktop at the same time

So, just because >800x600 is fast becoming a "norm" for Monitor size, it doesn't mean all that screen real estate is available to
web developers

About the only thing the stats all confirm is <800x600 is becoming a dinosaur




| I thought this might be as good a place as any to post this link:
|
| http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
|
| I am not sure who actually created this site, but I think it has some really
| good information (a Google search produced many such sites, all of which
| have very similar numbers). Notice that < 800x600 is decreasing, but is
| still a major section of the market.
|
| --
| Thanks!
| John Jansen
| Microsoft Office FrontPage
| This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| | > Yep, they fog up my reading glasses too.
| >
| > --
| > Steve Easton
| > MS MVP FrontPage
| > 95isalive
| > This site is best viewed..................
| > ..............................with a computer
| > | > > Those radiation burns are terrible. ;>)
| > >
| > > --
| > > Mike -- FrontPage MVP '97-'02
| > > http://www.websunlimited.com
| > > Need to protect your web pages Page Protector Pro
| > > http://www.websunlimited.com/order/Product/PagePro/pagepro.htm
| > > FrontPage Add-ins Since '97 2003 / 2002 / 2000 Compatible
| > >
| > >
| > > | > > > Short sighted, or maybe the fact that
| > > > don't want to sit with their noses 12 inches
| > > > from the monitor so they can read the small
| > > > text.
| > > >
| > > >
| > > > --
| > > > Steve Easton
| > > > MS MVP FrontPage
| > > > 95isalive
| > > > This site is best viewed..................
| > > > ..............................with a computer
| > > > | > > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:19:52 -0500, "Steve Easton"
| > > > >
| > > > > >Actually 50% of viewers or higher
| > > > > >have their monitors set at 800 by 600.
| > > > > Really?'i'm surprised !. There must be a lot of short sited people
| > > > > about!!
| > > > >
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
 
G

Guest

People with older monitors, astigmatism, or over age 50
may need the larger type that comes with a low res screen.
If your audience is affluent, clear-eyed and under 40 pack
the screen with tiny letters and distracting graphics and
at least one animation.
 
Top