Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Ken McCormack]

>> In other words sharing a problem you should solve with the visitors. <<

Nothing was shared except solutions mate - I realize the thought that 
framesets might be useful has shocked you - but it's true!  lol


In our situation we had a really nasty application integrity problem.  
Here's the problem -


1. Online system for a leading car manufacturer
2. Some users (car dealerships in very remote locations) on < 64k 
connections
3. If users click before page fully loaded, they get a event validation 
exception (bug in .NET framework 2.0)

4. Connections are not 100% robust / some pages don't get there
5. Business wants a 100% bullet proof solution

So, using a frameset to marshal / handle weird partial load issues in 
the inner page gave us an easy

**standards compliant** solution to the problem.

The end result is optimal user experience, even for this sad minority of 
Outback Ute sellers, and that's what pretentious utopian HTML snobbery 
is all about - loving your visitors.


: )









***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Opera has a "navigation bar" that users can turn on or off. It sits
 across the top of a page, and is populated by LINK elements in the
 HEAD section of a document.



Do you happen to know any sites that work with this concept? So any 
sites that have LINK elements in the HEAD section that would show up 
in Opera?


Mine does...

...with a few shortcomings:
1: Opera doesn't support hierarchical links all that well, so I haven't
added any 'child' links.
2: Mozilla's support is better, but it is slightly complex to use with
its many dropdowns, so I have not used its support as base.
3: Lynx is superior in its support for link-relations, but that browser
isn't widespread enough to add the extra link relations for.

More about link relations here...



You may also be interested in PPK's revamped site. See for example
 the "Blogs" page, and activate the "show site navigation" link on
 the left. Is this what you had in mind? -



Exactly. Well, I think there must be a better way to design it, so it
 doesn't overlap important content, but in the long run this is what 
I was thinking about. I guess I shouldn't have titled it 
"frame-style" - it took people off track with the discussion. But 
this is exactly the idea - why not provide navigation at all times to

 the user (in a standards compliant way of course)?


I think this page present what you want...

It's as standard compliant as you may wish for, and I think even IE7 can
handle it now.

I use the same 'position: fixed' on my page (linked above), but the
"sidebar" isn't populated with links since it's on a menu page.
The difference is that even IE6 is "apparently" able to support it on my
page, but that doesn't make IE6 "standard compliant", I'm afraid.

More about CSS frames here...


regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hucklesby
> Sent: Friday, 29 September 2006 2:40 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
> 
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:15:47 +1000, Andreas Boehmer 
> [Addictive Media] wrote:
> > [...]
> > However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an
> > accessible and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support
> > it. So the question comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics):
> > wouldn't it be more user-friendly to always make the primary
> > navigation available to users, no matter what part of the page they
> > are looking at?
> >
> Interesting concept Andreas. Your idea has already been realized
> to a degree in Opera.
> 
> Opera has a "navigation bar" that users can turn on or off. It sits 
> across the top of a page, and is populated by LINK elements in the 
> HEAD section of a document.

Do you happen to know any sites that work with this concept? So any sites
that have LINK elements in the HEAD section that would show up in Opera?

> You may also be interested in PPK's revamped site. See for example
> the "Blogs" page, and activate the "show site navigation" link on
> the left. Is this what you had in mind? -

Exactly. Well, I think there must be a better way to design it, so it
doesn't overlap important content, but in the long run this is what I was
thinking about. I guess I shouldn't have titled it "frame-style" - it took
people off track with the discussion. But this is exactly the idea - why not
provide navigation at all times to the user (in a standards compliant way of
course)?



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[David Hucklesby]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:15:47 +1000, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
> [...]
> However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an
> accessible and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support
> it. So the question comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics):
> wouldn't it be more user-friendly to always make the primary
> navigation available to users, no matter what part of the page they
> are looking at?
>
Interesting concept Andreas. Your idea has already been realized
to a degree in Opera.

Opera has a "navigation bar" that users can turn on or off. It sits 
across the top of a page, and is populated by LINK elements in the 
HEAD section of a document.

The navigation is limited to predefined keywords, like Home, Index,
Search, Glossary, Help, Previous ...

You may also be interested in PPK's revamped site. See for example
the "Blogs" page, and activate the "show site navigation" link on
the left. Is this what you had in mind? -



Cordially,
David
--




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Michael Yeaney]

 I/FRAMES weren't removed because they are frames, I/FRAMES became
obsolete by OBJECT, which offer and need the same configuration (width,
height, overflow). In my opinion IMG should have too.
 In XHTML 2.0 the function of OBJECT as I/FRAME becomes obsolete by
, because you'll be able to give external content to any element.


Point well takenit was not my intent to omit the OBJECT tag -
thanks for the correction!!!

Mike


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Niels Fröhling]

> ...I have yet to understand why the standards committees have
> been 'pruning' the specs of all tools that were useful to achieve such
> affects (this includes the downplaying of IFRAMEs).

 I/FRAMES weren't removed because they are frames, I/FRAMES became
obsolete by OBJECT, which offer and need the same configuration (width,
height, overflow). In my opinion IMG should have too.
 In XHTML 2.0 the function of OBJECT as I/FRAME becomes obsolete by
, because you'll be able to give external content to any element.

 It's easy to follow and agree. :)
 It's not because of the evil FRAME.

 Ciao
Niels


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Christian Heilmann]

I think frames still have uses in GUI design - having a parent frame
wrapper can be useful for maintaining state or keeping track of open
dialogs, or showing a loading screen.  You might also want to mask a url
containing a temporary session IDs, so it can't be bookmarked.


In other words sharing a problem you should solve with the visitors.
With Ajax, it is not really a problem to store state changes
periodically on the server rather than relying on a frameset.


--
Chris Heilmann
Book: http://www.beginningjavascript.com
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Ken McCormack]

>>frames are not needed anymore<<

I think frames still have uses in GUI design - having a parent frame 
wrapper can be useful for maintaining state or keeping track of open 
dialogs, or showing a loading screen.  You might also want to mask a url 
containing a temporary session IDs, so it can't be bookmarked. 


Also an easy way to achieve AJAX like affects in NN4. [joke]







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Christian Heilmann]

However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible
and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question
comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more
user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no
matter what part of the page they are looking at?


The key point here is "imitate" frames. As others pointed out, you
have to go to some lengths to make an overflow page work cross-browser
and avoid double scrollbars. The other issue is that in order to use a
mousewheel you need to focus the overflow area first (or on some
browsers you wouldn't be able at all).

Showing a menu with position:fixed (and hack around with it for MSIE)
is an option, and I have seen many implementations on blogs doing
that. As with any usability idea and concern, there is one simple
solution: Test it with your visitors or a group of totally
disconnected testers. I found that a lot of times we solve problems
with technology that aren't there at all.

What I found increasingly with my readers though is that navigation
repeated on the bottom of the screen works very well, as people do
scan (read) through the whole document, scroll down and go from there.

As others pointed out, too, the use of frames was most of the time not
really a usability aspect (although it was handy to only have the
content document refresh on a 28.8 modem) but ease of maintenance of
the site and small document size.

Usability is an interesting thing. On one project with a massive menu
(which had to comply with a set taxonomy) we found that shifting the
current section to the second position of the menu after a home link
worked amazingly well although most usability gurus will flog you for
messing with the menu order:
http://www.onlinetools.org/tools/easynav/cnohome/index.php

--
Chris Heilmann
Book: http://www.beginningjavascript.com
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Kepler Gelotte]

> I agree with your sentiments, but frames are not needed anymore - all
> recent browsers will allow you to add the nav content via the object
> tag. E.g.
> 
> Fallback navigation
> here...

> Combine with 'position:fixed' ('position:absolute' for IE) on the nav
> and you have exactly what you want.

I think you may be confusing s with /s. I think
until someone rewrites the javadoc command, there will be a need for
framesets. As far as the  and  tags, they don't seem to
expand to accommodate the content. They also don't generate bookmarkable
URLs.

Regards,
Kepler 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Geoff Pack]

 
I agree with your sentiments, but frames are not needed anymore - all
recent browsers will allow you to add the nav content via the object
tag. E.g.

Fallback navigation
here...

Combine with 'position:fixed' ('position:absolute' for IE) on the nav
and you have exactly what you want.

Cheers,
Geoff










==
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and
may contain legally privileged or copyright material.   It is intended only for
the use of the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or
any attachments.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this email from your system.  The ABC does not
represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free.   Before
opening any attachment you should check for viruses.  The ABC's liability is
limited to resupplying any email and attachments
==


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Michael Yeaney]

...
The benefit from frames didn't come from the fact that the menu was in the
same place on every page, the benefit was that there was less content to
load as the navigation page never had to be reloaded. In the age of ADSL and
Cable this is somewhat redundant.
...


Don't know about anyone else, but when I used frames (and when I still
do for non-content based applications, a.k.a. apps that must act like
desktop applications), I didn't do it to save bandwidth.  I used it to
achieve a simple effect (which didn't require 5K of JS):  A solid,
consistently placed nav menu, that was always visible.  Simple.  Done.

But for some reason, this was considered bad for everyoneeven
those of us who don't develop content-based sites.  Alas, we all must
sufferI have yet to understand why the standards committees have
been 'pruning' the specs of all tools that were useful to achieve such
affects (this includes the downplaying of IFRAMEs).  I would like to
think we are smart enough to know when to use something in our
toolboxevery tool is not effective (nor appropriate) in every
situation.  Let us make the choice.

Sigh...

As I've commented before, there is another side to the web apart from
serving up product/news/etc. content and the recent morning blog
lists.  The world I work in (now) is Internet based (specifically
HTTP/HTML) applications (before that, it was the normal public content
site stuff).  In other words, the porting of older desktop
client-server applications to the browser world.  And the number one
concern for my (my company's) clients???  It had better act like the
desktop application it replaced.  That's starting to get hard to do
when the specs are being tailored to document-centric uses.

Don't get me wrong...I don't mind using JS to achieve more complex
effects, but the last thing I need is an additional 5K when a simple
tag will do the job.

Thanks for your time...
Michael Yeaney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Samuel Richardson]

 
Well if your concern is always having the menu on the screen for the user to
find then just use JavaScript to position it according to the view-port. If
the user has JavaScript turned off then it will always appear at the top and
not move. The user has a number of ways of navigating back to the top of the
screen to use the navigation, scroll wheel, scroll bar, back to top links
and the home button all achieve that.

Wrapping the entire content area in an overflow div is not going to achieve
a good result, you have to set a width and height on it and the scrollbar on
the right-hand side is going to be slightly offset from its normal position.

In all honestly, if it was going to improve usability of the website then
we'd see quite a few more websites employing it.

S



-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 10:02 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:40 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
> 
> There is nothing to stop you from fixing the navigation to 
> the same place in
> your page design. 

I don't really work on a site like this per se. I guess I am just looking
for an answer if the technology of the Internet shouldn't be used in a
different way than what we do at the moment. We currently design websites in
a very inconvenient way which forces users to always scroll back to the top
of the page before they can continue to a different page. Personally I feel
our minds are still stuck with designing for print and we haven't quite
understood yet how to design big amounts of information for the Internet.

> That only leaves the other area of the page which is
> contained in an overflow, there's not much point in this 
> either as it's only
> going to serve to annoy your visitors as they're scrolling a view port
> inside the browser rather then the browser window itself. 

Interesting point. In a way I see what you mean: users are accustomed to
having their scrollbar at a certain position of their screen. The question
is: would users be willing to accept scrollbars of different sizes and
positions in exchange for a menu that is available at all times? Perhaps we
would need a standard to ensure that the scrollbar of the content area is
always on the right hand side of the browser window...?

> I 
> suppose it does
> stop the navigation from scrolling off the screen but if 
> that's really a
> concern then you're either not designing your page properly 
> or trying to
> force the user to do something you shouldn't 

Don't quite agree with you here. The way we design pages at the moment you
cannot prevent the menu to scroll off the screen. And there's no real way
for users to continue browsing other than getting back up to the menu. Of
course we can always put a text navigation at the bottom of the page, but
there are two problems with that:

1. Who says the user is at the very bottom of the page? There might be that
much information on the page that the user can't see the top or the bottom.

2. The text navigation at the bottom looks completely different to the menu
button at the top which the user clicked on in first place. This means the
user's mind has to switch between two different menus - that's not really
intuitive.

> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:16 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
> 
> There was a time when lots of websites utilised frames, to provide the
> advantage of a static menu that is always available on the 
> screen, no matter
> what area of the page the user looks at. 
> 
> I am sure we covered the topic enough to agree that frames 
> are not the way
> to go, as they carry accessibility issues with them and can 
> cause problems
> for search engines. So we all moved away from frames and are 
> now accustomed
> to a page layout that contains the menu somewhere at the top 
> (or top left).
> 
> However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames 
> in an accessible
> and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. 
> So the question
> comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more
> user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available 
> to users, no
> matter what part of the page th

RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:43 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
> 
> On 9/26/06, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames 
> in an accessible
> > and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support 
> it. So the question
> > comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more
> > user-friendly to always make the primary navigation 
> available to users, no
> > matter what part of the page they are looking at?
> ...
> > I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our 
> passion for Web
> > Standards make us overlook the advantages of the 
> frame-style layout? Or are
> > there usability/accessibility issues I am overlooking here?
> 
> The one problem I will mention is that it is important to avoid having
> more than one scrollbar on a page at a time. If a site has a fixed
> menu down the left that is very long and always has a scrollbar, and
> it also has the main body scrollbar for the content that is not fixed,
> then it loses the convention that the user can scroll the page with
> either the keyboard or the mouse wheel. They usually have to click on
> the area of the page they want to scroll first. May not be a big deal,
> but I do think that implementations which assume mouse use are not
> universal or convenient.
> 

Very important point. I agree!



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:40 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
> 
> There is nothing to stop you from fixing the navigation to 
> the same place in
> your page design. 

I don't really work on a site like this per se. I guess I am just looking
for an answer if the technology of the Internet shouldn't be used in a
different way than what we do at the moment. We currently design websites in
a very inconvenient way which forces users to always scroll back to the top
of the page before they can continue to a different page. Personally I feel
our minds are still stuck with designing for print and we haven't quite
understood yet how to design big amounts of information for the Internet.

> That only leaves the other area of the page which is
> contained in an overflow, there's not much point in this 
> either as it's only
> going to serve to annoy your visitors as they're scrolling a view port
> inside the browser rather then the browser window itself. 

Interesting point. In a way I see what you mean: users are accustomed to
having their scrollbar at a certain position of their screen. The question
is: would users be willing to accept scrollbars of different sizes and
positions in exchange for a menu that is available at all times? Perhaps we
would need a standard to ensure that the scrollbar of the content area is
always on the right hand side of the browser window...?

> I 
> suppose it does
> stop the navigation from scrolling off the screen but if 
> that's really a
> concern then you're either not designing your page properly 
> or trying to
> force the user to do something you shouldn't 

Don't quite agree with you here. The way we design pages at the moment you
cannot prevent the menu to scroll off the screen. And there's no real way
for users to continue browsing other than getting back up to the menu. Of
course we can always put a text navigation at the bottom of the page, but
there are two problems with that:

1. Who says the user is at the very bottom of the page? There might be that
much information on the page that the user can't see the top or the bottom.

2. The text navigation at the bottom looks completely different to the menu
button at the top which the user clicked on in first place. This means the
user's mind has to switch between two different menus - that's not really
intuitive.

> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:16 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
> 
> There was a time when lots of websites utilised frames, to provide the
> advantage of a static menu that is always available on the 
> screen, no matter
> what area of the page the user looks at. 
> 
> I am sure we covered the topic enough to agree that frames 
> are not the way
> to go, as they carry accessibility issues with them and can 
> cause problems
> for search engines. So we all moved away from frames and are 
> now accustomed
> to a page layout that contains the menu somewhere at the top 
> (or top left).
> 
> However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames 
> in an accessible
> and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. 
> So the question
> comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more
> user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available 
> to users, no
> matter what part of the page they are looking at? 
> 
> Let's not worry about the problem of aesthetics right now, 
> but imagine a
> site that uses css to create this frame-design: our menu sits 
> on the left
> hand side, our content on the right hand side. We have got a 
> scroll bar that
> only moves the content areas (achieved through overflow). The menu is
> available at all times. Which means the users not only are 
> aware of all of
> their options at any given point in time, but they can also 
> be visually
> reminded of their current position in the page (e.g. through 
> breadcrumbs or
> highlighted current menu item).
> 
> A browser that does not support css would simply display our 
> sample page the
> way we currently do it: menu static at the top, the scrollbar 
> moves the
> entire page. No accessibility or search-engine issues.
> 
> I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our 
> passion for Web
> Standards make us overlook th

Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Christian Montoya]

On 9/26/06, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...

However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible
and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question
comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more
user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no
matter what part of the page they are looking at?

...

I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our passion for Web
Standards make us overlook the advantages of the frame-style layout? Or are
there usability/accessibility issues I am overlooking here?


On fixed positioning with CSS, you mentioned overflow:auto which is
important. Some sites implement fixed content without overflow:auto
and they assume that the viewport is large enough to hold that
content... that doesn't always work.

I have seen sites that use fixed content, and I do think they work
well. Frames were not rejected because they were not usable (though,
for many sites they are not the right way to go). They were rejected
because they were inaccessible both to search engines and users, and
because they presented a wealth of problems beyond that.

The one problem I will mention is that it is important to avoid having
more than one scrollbar on a page at a time. If a site has a fixed
menu down the left that is very long and always has a scrollbar, and
it also has the main body scrollbar for the content that is not fixed,
then it loses the convention that the user can scroll the page with
either the keyboard or the mouse wheel. They usually have to click on
the area of the page they want to scroll first. May not be a big deal,
but I do think that implementations which assume mouse use are not
universal or convenient.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Samuel Richardson]

 
The benefit from frames didn't come from the fact that the menu was in the
same place on every page, the benefit was that there was less content to
load as the navigation page never had to be reloaded. In the age of ADSL and
Cable this is somewhat redundant.

There is nothing to stop you from fixing the navigation to the same place in
your page design. That only leaves the other area of the page which is
contained in an overflow, there's not much point in this either as it's only
going to serve to annoy your visitors as they're scrolling a view port
inside the browser rather then the browser window itself. I suppose it does
stop the navigation from scrolling off the screen but if that's really a
concern then you're either not designing your page properly or trying to
force the user to do something you shouldn't ("BUT THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW WHAT
TO DO IF THEY CAN'T SEE THE NAVIGATION" - Stupid Marketing Manager No. 1).


-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:16 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

There was a time when lots of websites utilised frames, to provide the
advantage of a static menu that is always available on the screen, no matter
what area of the page the user looks at. 

I am sure we covered the topic enough to agree that frames are not the way
to go, as they carry accessibility issues with them and can cause problems
for search engines. So we all moved away from frames and are now accustomed
to a page layout that contains the menu somewhere at the top (or top left).

However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible
and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question
comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more
user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no
matter what part of the page they are looking at? 

Let's not worry about the problem of aesthetics right now, but imagine a
site that uses css to create this frame-design: our menu sits on the left
hand side, our content on the right hand side. We have got a scroll bar that
only moves the content areas (achieved through overflow). The menu is
available at all times. Which means the users not only are aware of all of
their options at any given point in time, but they can also be visually
reminded of their current position in the page (e.g. through breadcrumbs or
highlighted current menu item).

A browser that does not support css would simply display our sample page the
way we currently do it: menu static at the top, the scrollbar moves the
entire page. No accessibility or search-engine issues.

I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our passion for Web
Standards make us overlook the advantages of the frame-style layout? Or are
there usability/accessibility issues I am overlooking here?


Andreas Boehmer
User Experience Consultant

Addictive Media
Phone: (03) 9386 8907
Mobile: 0411 097 038
http://www.addictivemedia.com.au
Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

There was a time when lots of websites utilised frames, to provide the
advantage of a static menu that is always available on the screen, no matter
what area of the page the user looks at. 

I am sure we covered the topic enough to agree that frames are not the way
to go, as they carry accessibility issues with them and can cause problems
for search engines. So we all moved away from frames and are now accustomed
to a page layout that contains the menu somewhere at the top (or top left).

However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible
and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question
comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more
user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no
matter what part of the page they are looking at? 

Let's not worry about the problem of aesthetics right now, but imagine a
site that uses css to create this frame-design: our menu sits on the left
hand side, our content on the right hand side. We have got a scroll bar that
only moves the content areas (achieved through overflow). The menu is
available at all times. Which means the users not only are aware of all of
their options at any given point in time, but they can also be visually
reminded of their current position in the page (e.g. through breadcrumbs or
highlighted current menu item).

A browser that does not support css would simply display our sample page the
way we currently do it: menu static at the top, the scrollbar moves the
entire page. No accessibility or search-engine issues.

I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our passion for Web
Standards make us overlook the advantages of the frame-style layout? Or are
there usability/accessibility issues I am overlooking here?


Andreas Boehmer
User Experience Consultant

Addictive Media
Phone: (03) 9386 8907
Mobile: 0411 097 038
http://www.addictivemedia.com.au
Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***