The app I'm working on is currently on our intranet so I don't have the
issue of bookmarks/search engines when I'm dealing with frames. (they can't
just go straight to that page but must login).
My one frame shows a query result (all the students in a particular
teacher's class) I thought this would be the best way to show all the
students without alot of extra download time (we have some very old machines
and I didn't want the query to run each time a teacher chose a student....I
could get the same "look" using tables I was more concerned with reloads
etc)
This person who mentioned frames not being good with fusebox did not mention
any of the browser/frame issues that most of you brought up. He talked
about the difficulties of managing frames from within fusebox. He felt they
quickly became unwieldy (trying to track all the different fuses etc) on
bigger sites. maybe he was just explaining one piece of the bigger picture.
Thanks for all the responses.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:56 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Tables versus Frames
Echoing the opinions of Patrick and Russel before me, I recommed NOT using
frames if you can. That being said, I think that any even minorly-complex
web _app_ is better with frames. If you're making an information site or a
small application, or don't have as many options to click on one page as oh,
say, Outlook, then frames are no good.
People say that search engines can't index framed stuff, and bookmarks suck,
and that Nutscrape doesn't do well. I agree, mostly. But for the sites where
I've decided to use frames, letting search engines in is not allowed and not
needed. I stick little "bookmark me" links inside frames to get around the
bad bookmarking ability (but people tend not to bookmark framed applications
anyway - who bookmarks a screen in Outlook?). Finally, Nutscrape works JUST
FINE with frames, as long as you don't do iframes. Usually it requires a
slightly different sizing in fra_mother, but once you figure out the pixel
difference, it's not a big deal.
Good luck,
NAT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:16 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Tables versus Frames
>
>
> I can tell you a dozen reasons (that have nothing to do with fusebox)
> not to use frames. However, I just got finished creating an application
> that used frames and fusebox. My philosophy is basically this: If it
> will work just as well without frames, don't use frames.
>
> See also http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ShakerQuote
>
> Patrick
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Janine Jakim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:02 AM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: OT: Tables versus Frames
> >
> >
> > I hate to start a huge debate, but, I was recently talking to a seasoned
> > fusebox developer. He told me it was best not to use frames
> with fusebox-
> > that it gets too convoluted and difficult with all the different
> > fuseactions, etc. He said it would be much better to use tables
> > to display
> > the pages as if there are frames there. But I don't like the
> > fact that with
> > tables all the info is reloaded each time! (This discussion of
> > course took
> > place after I struggled to get my frames to work perfectly, but I'm not
> > bitter...) So what do people think? Do the large sites become
> > unmanageable
> > using frames? Are tables the way to go?
> > Humbly yours,
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
