Framed Hybrid website review please

[threebirds]

If you simply want to bash on HTML Frames, skip this request. Don't even look. It's only for Framed Hybrid innovators and early adopters.

 

I'm looking for review on content, usability, speed, navigation, design, and presentation. Not coding technique or method. Just front end.

 

http://www.thermalresistivity.com/

 

Thanks for your time and interest--

 

Threebirds

web engineer

[Andrea]

If you simply want to bash on HTML Frames, skip this request. Don't even look. It's only for Framed Hybrid innovators and early adopters.

OK, I'll skip it - but by 'Framed Hybrid Innovaters' - are you trying so say that frames are a good thing and those 'early adopters' are ahead of their time or something?

[newseed]

If you simply want to bash on HTML Frames, skip this request. Don't even look. It's only for Framed Hybrid innovators and early adopters.

The only 'Framed Hybrid Innovaters' that I might find are those that look at this on a Intranet and not the interent.

 

Now if you don't want to hear from those that 'want to bash on HTML Frames' then maybe you can tell us why?

 

Now from the usuability standpoint, I will critique this:

 

I visit your site.

I clicked on Library and then the first article.

I clicked to save it to my Bookmarks/Favorites.

I moved on to another website.

I then wanted to go back to your website to read that article again.

So I chose the link from my Bookmarks/Favorites.

Whoa? it's not displaying the page of the article that I bookmarked.

 

Keep in mind that this isn't bashing HTML Frames but merely trying to make a point as to how it can effect the user's experience.

[threebirds]

If you simply want to bash on HTML Frames' date=' skip this request. Don't even look. It's only for Framed Hybrid innovators and early adopters.[/quote']OK, I'll skip it - but by 'Framed Hybrid Innovaters' - are you trying so say that frames are a good thing and those 'early adopters' are ahead of their time or something?

 

Thelma-

 

Thank you for NOT visiting this website. I've grown quite bored with the disrespect paid to a legacy technology that is still used by Google image, About.com, and many smaller sites like GoDaddy stats to display advertising and dynamic content. Frames will evolve into XFRAMES and few will know how to use them. An edge for fellows like me.

 

Here is a link that might interest you instead:

 

http://www.thefwa.com/articles/hybrid1105.html

 

It explains the virtues of Framed Hybrid websites.

 

You may find you have a different opinion but I doubt it. Frames are not a universal tool. They are only good for special applications. They still require discernment, appropriateness, and good taste. Just like any technology -like overzealous Flash sites especially.

 

Here is another reference more biased because I wrote it:

 

http://www.pagepipe.com/Framed-Hybrid.pdf

 

It's a 56K download.

[threebirds]

Bashing on Frames is ubiquitous on the web. It's dogmatic and prejudiced. I'd like to hear something refreshing for a change. This seems like a good forum for thinking people. Am I right?

 

You said:

Now from the usability standpoint, I will critique this:

 

I visit your site.

I clicked on Library and then the first article.

I clicked to save it to my Bookmarks/Favorites.

I moved on to another website.

I then wanted to go back to your website to read that article again.

So I chose the link from my Bookmarks/Favorites.

Whoa? it's not displaying the page of the article that I bookmarked.

 

Keep in mind that this isn't bashing HTML Frames but merely trying to make a point as to how it can effect the user's experience.

 

Thank you for not bashing Frames. Now I will critique your IQ.

 

TKG, What do you think the goal is for this website? Getting people to link to it or bookmark it? Obviously not. That is a known limitation of HTML Frames. The main goal is only to get them to request a quotation on the signup form. That's it. You made an erroneous assumption that bookmarking was a primary goal. It isn't.

 

Thanks for reporting on something so obvious. You could NOT remember how to navigate a seven page website? You were taken back to the HOME page, right? Did that strain your brain? Such small sites do NOT require any sophistication for users. The user isn't that dumb. Did you notice this is targeted at an industrial market of ENGINEERS?

 

Try dropping in on a lonely FRAME for this site from Google sometime. See where that takes you. (HOME again!) Wouldn't it be more dangerous NOT having any navigation? Web engineering is about compromise. This website was built in less than 45 days-- start to finish. That includes content generation and image research. Turnaround time is very important. But the question still remains: Does the website offer answers to problems? Is it presented in a logical way? Is it functional? Is it readable? Is it attractive? Does it feel different? Those are the questions I'd like to hear addressed by you --NOT whether HTML Frames are good or bad or if Frames are antiquated. Those are unresolvable and a matter of coding preference. That stuff has been rehashed a million times.

 

This is NOT a question on the inappropriateness of Frames but under what "limitations" and "criteria" are HTML Frames a good solution. I propose this site may have more merit than is apparent to programmers who were taught in school never to use Frames. Ever.

 

Thanks for looking. Take another look, please, but this time take off your "regulatory" hat and look for the positive results. This site has been up for only a few weeks and already has every content page listed and ranked by Google. It already has visitors. But what does the web community have to say? I'm listening to you and asking for new eyes. The site already "owns" the organic keyphrases for Google front-page for several targets. "Google can read nested Frames?" Yes. That broken-spidering falsehood is actually taught on the web in tutorial sites with posting dates as recent as 2008. Gads! Myths do not die.

 

What kind of load times are you seeing on this non-PHP website? Are they good and fast? Is page variety an asset or a liability (in other words, like template, CSS Dreamweaver, cookiecutter boredom)? In navigating, what seems awkward? What is boring? Do YOU really know how to review a websites merits?

 

I look forward to hearing your opinions on these topics --not Frames. Don't just shove me off into the "newbie-idiot-Frame" pile. I'm looking for "unseen-by-me" improvement. I know the limitations of Frames that I don't want to waste time on. Those are resolved for me.

 

Thanks for tolerating my insolence. Show me you are the expert this forum claims you are. That's my challenge to you. Show me some credibility.

[jlhaslip]

Without much ado, I'm thinking that your "framed Hybrid" looks and acts a lot like a fixed position 'Framed' site I already have the design for which allows me to bookmark specific pages.

 

I'm not excited about this Demo. I'll wait for the Xframes Module to reach maturity.

[newseed]

Whatever you are catering too, I can tell you this much:

 

It breaks the top nav in FX.

 

For those that have a few toolbars for their browser, your left frame hides behind the bottom of the browser and there is no way to scroll up or down (i.e. ASTM links under the left image column do not appear.

 

You get a horizontal scroll in IE6

 

When you google for something specific, they may find a page they want to view but all your links get redirected to the home page thus requiring users to take several more steps to find what they are looking for.

 

Does not print some or all the contents of the page in various browsers.

 

I have been in the engineering business for 10 years before coming to web development and I can relate and understand the concept you have here. I think the graphical design itself is good and the text have good contrast and size for readability. The design is simple and not filled with complex functions or whistles and bells.

 

Now if you can't take the heat of the forum then be all means move on. However, you would not believe how many countless people have come through here stating that they know what they are doing only later to find out they took the wrong approach in building the website the way the did. You were no different and nor were you singled out just because you used frames or whatever other tools you use.

 

If you have read some of the key sticky topics you might have avoided posting your request for a critique knowing full well where we stand on frames. Opinions are valued here but insults are not. Constructive criticism are not insults but criticizing someone's IQ is.

 

This is not to say you are not welcome here (and you are welcome here) but to remind you that we teach the basic principles of web design that applies to standard and function for all browsers. This is not to say frames are dead but instead that there are much better options such as CSS overflow along with server side includes.

[threebirds]

Without much ado, I'm thinking that your "framed Hybrid" looks and acts a lot like a fixed position 'Framed' site I already have the design for which allows me to bookmark specific pages.

 

I'm not excited about this Demo. I'll wait for the Xframes Module to reach maturity.

 

Thanks for the look. This website actually is a liquid site with dynamic resizing images. Try it on 15", 17" and 21" monitors and it automatically adjusts to the browser window size. Surely, you find this transparent feature unique. There are others but invisible to users. That's what transparency is all about.

 

So it's not "fixed position."

 

I'm very curious to learn how you bookmarked your Framed pages. CSS, JS, PHP? Let me know, please. This would be useful information. A sample snippet would be a joy. How painful was the coding experience? Or a URL would be great.

[threebirds]

Whatever you are catering too, I can tell you this much: It breaks the top nav in FX.

I'm assuming by "breaks the NAVBAR" you means it "wraps" in Firefox. This I have seen on some small browsers. What is your screen resolution? Are you on a 15" portable monitor? and do you have your browser window open full or less? It should adapt on-the-fly. I assume your extra "chrome" is FF tools and plugins.

 

For those that have a few toolbars for their browser, your left frame hides behind the bottom of the browser and there is no way to scroll up or down (i.e. ASTM links under the left image column do not appear.

 

Thanks for being specific. I thought this problematic page was fixed. But obviously it needs a more "serious" fix. I don't like that navigation anyway. Again, I'm curious about your screen size. While this site works on 600x800 px., it was designed for 1024 x 768 px. That is the audiences typical resolution or higher. Highspeed Desktops.

 

You get a horizontal scroll in IE6

 

Okay. Bad form for me. This is useful info. I have seen this on one computer screen. But not on any engineers screens. I'm not sure why this is occurring. I can't get it to replicate on my hardware- Mac OSX or WINPC XP. It may be browser specific IE6 voodoo. Thanks. I'll find a workaround.

 

When you google for something specific, they may find a page they want to view but all your links get redirected to the home page thus requiring users to take several more steps to find what they are looking for.

 

This is a deliberate "usability" sacrifice for "story continuity." The client (company) knows this is occurring and has no problem with it. Where they start is being forced. This has to do with presentation and usability compromises. This workaround is fine for the clients needs. And solves Frame isolation problem. We'll see how it affects site dumping with Google Analytics. I don't think it will be significant. But you point is noted.

 

Does not print some or all the contents of the page in various browsers.

 

Printing these webpages is not part of the design criteria. But thanks for noticing this known Frame limitation.

 

I have been in the engineering business for 10 years before coming to web development and I can relate and understand the concept you have here.

 

Thanks. I've been around for a long time, too. High tech engineering and marketing for 35 years. And the best is still to come! Did you test the "liquid" stretchiness? It's a transparent feature but worth playing with just to see it happen.

 

I think the graphical design itself is good and the text have good contrast and size for readability.

 

The text size was a deliberate choice for the aging market. 100% Easy-to-Read Standard 100E2R. http://informationarchitects.jp/100E2R/

 

The design is simple and not filled with complex functions or whistles and bells.

 

Simplicity was a primary goal. Focusing on just one product message. No site bloat.

 

Now if you can't take the heat of the forum then be all means move on. However, you would not believe how many countless people have come through here stating that they know what they are doing only later to find out they took the wrong approach in building the website the way the did. You were no different and nor were you singled out just because you used frames or whatever other tools you use.

 

I don't feel abused. I'm like a leatherback sea turtle. My shell is not hard but I can handle criticism. Especially when it changes or improves my designs. That's the goal.

 

If you have read some of the key sticky topics you might have avoided posting your request for a critique knowing full well where we stand on frames. Opinions are valued here but insults are not. Constructive criticism are not insults but criticizing someone's IQ is.

 

If I didn't think you were capable of better, I wouldn't have wasted the "IQ" smile. You have a high IQ and are capable. I didn't want to be brushed off with the obvious limitations of Frames. You were pulling your punches because you thought I was the same old dummy that wanders in wanting to know if his ill-conceived website can be salvaged. That is not my case. This is not my first Framed Hybrid website. I wanted a serious review. I think you almost covered the bases. And I expect more comments will flow in --sadly, mostly negative. That's what I need most. Slamming or ignoring W3C HTML Frame standards is not a review. Most site visitors never know they are on a Frame site, nor will they care. No one has mentioned "speed" another transparency feature. People only notice slow sites, not fast ones. Oh, well. Optimization wasn't addressed but I already know where I stand on that topic. So, no problem.

 

This is not to say you are not welcome here (and you are welcome here) but to remind you that we teach the basic principles of web design that applies to standard and function for all browsers. This is not to say frames are dead but instead that there are much better options such as CSS overflow along with server side includes.

 

HTML Frames is part of the W3C standard. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/framesetdtd.html Nice try edging me out on a technical foul. I have always had a fascination of Frame possibilities.

 

Thanks for your advice and critique. I've been advised by Guru designers not to do programming because coding is too complex and everchanging and overwhelming. I say, "Set severe limitations and work within those bounds." This forces creative thinking and simplicity. I used to restrict my pages to 35K page weight. At 75K, I feel like I'm working in a cathedral instead of a one-room cabin. Average Internet page weight is now around 350K. What an absolute waste of bandwidth!

[lm]

it all reminds me a tables-no tables discussion.

Tables or frames - if you use them for right reasons, why not. But you should be aware of their downsides. Moreover, not only be aware yourself, but should be able to warn beginners in web design (for whom this forum exist) about their ( frames) limitations.

I have always had a fascination of Frame possibilities.

Fascination would be not be a serious "pro" argument.

If you have couple a pages personal website with no intentions to have good accessibility and SEO, it is your personal choice, use frames. But if you seriously considering building good professional website, you would prefer clean minimalistic HTML with CSS styling template which you implement either in CMS or make your few pages website using PHP includes.

[threebirds]

Just wanted to say thanks. There were three errors previously overlooked or discounted before your review:

 

1. Top nav breaks in FX.

 

This was an easy fix. Reduce the font size. It wasn't "broken" but did word wrap.

 

2. You get a horizontal scroll in IE6.

 

This remains a mystery. I saw this once on a machine in the lobby of a Portland, OR. hotel a few weeks ago. Obviously running IE6 from what you've said. I downloaded IE6.0 and can't get an error. In fact, I downloaded a bunch of version and can't get this horizontal scroll error.

 

Install multiple versions of IE on your PC free

http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE

v3.0, 4.01, 5.01, 5.5, 6.0, I already had v7.0

 

The culprit is IE6 for sure. According to online forums, this problem occurs in Frames and CSS with 100% width embedded tables. The cheapest fix is making the table width 99%. I will install that but I have no way of knowing if it's fixed or not since I can't see it broken. Can you tell me the "exact" version of IE6 you tested on. Maybe I need an "updater." My version 6.0 is the annoying one where Flash files had to be "allowed" on each page before loading. Gak!

 

3. FIX ASTM links under the left image column.

 

This was easy. I just moved the subnavigation over to the right scrolling column. Much improved. Thanks.

 

Here's some stats below. As I mentioned, this was built for 1024 x 768 viewing. It is operable down to 600 x 800 px.

 

Display Resolution

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

The current trend is that most computers are using a screen size of 1024x768 pixels or more:

Date Higher 1024x768 800x600 640x480 Unknown

Jan09 57% 36% 4% 0% 3%

 

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

Browser Statistics

2009 IE7 IE6 IE8 Fx Chrome S O

April 23.2% 15.4% 3.5% 47.1% 4.9% 3.0% 2.2%

[threebirds]

it all reminds me a tables-no tables discussion.

Tables or frames - if you use them for right reasons, why not. But you should be aware of their downsides. Moreover, not only be aware yourself, but should be able to warn beginners in web design (for whom this forum exist) about their ( frames) limitations.

I have always had a fascination of Frame possibilities.

Fascination would be not be a serious "pro" argument.

If you have couple a pages personal website with no intentions to have good accessibility and SEO, it is your personal choice, use frames. But if you seriously considering building good professional website, you would prefer clean minimalistic HTML with CSS styling template which you implement either in CMS or make your few pages website using PHP includes.

 

T-

 

This was a definite bash on Frames and slam on my "fascination" being interpreted as unprofessional or childish. I'm not really interested in opinions of HTML frames technology. And if you don't have a fascination, you don't have much purpose or meaning in your job. Killing me with Facts would be a better tactic. There is no evidence CSS produces less code or lighter sites or even simplicity. You need to do some real-world value analysis. Frames aren't for every site. Everyone knows that already. Just small sites that need to be built fast and efficiently. You have no data for your defense. Nothing has contributed more to site bloat than Adobe Dreamweaver CSS --except embedded Flash videos. There is nothing wrong with fascination with ideas or concepts. It propels us to greater creative thought and innovation. As usual, I'm disappointed in the lack of right-hemisphere thinking in the "coding" world. Yes, there are people who can do front-end and back-end, right and left, whole brain thinking. But it requires limiting the project scope and toolset. My self-imposed limits seem to bother programmers. Why? Don't they realize it's limitations that make creativity into an asset. Creativity is the inverse of dollars. C=1/$

 

Saying Frames can NOT generate "good SEO" is absurd. I've already stated the SEO on this site is excellent. Check it out for yourself. Google on "Thermal Resistivity." Have you ever compared Flash site SEO to Framed site SEO? (Frankly, I think SEO is dead. Not Frames. Google's plugged all the holes for exploitation. Well, most of them anyway.)

 

Dear Beginners in Web Design:

 

WARNING! Do NOT ever use Frames without adult supervision. Frames frighten "real" professionals. If you can design something with Frames and make as much money as they do, not only do you make them look stupid, but you destroy the entire fantasy fee structure of web services. Not to mention their professional confidence. Frames only reduce prices. So please do NOT use Frames or even try to convince your small business clients that Frames may have potential. Frames are only a creativity tool and shortcut to fast, low-cost web products. Don't waste other "programmers" higher education. Don't even try. Frames are only used by retards and fools like Google and Amazon. Just because they are successful doesn't mean they are smart.

 

I can't believe it. "Just for personal sites with no intentions of good accessibility and SEO!" Um? Have you ever visited Google Images?

 

This isn't a hobby. It's how I make my living people. I'm making money not art. Wake up! Look at legacy stuff and see how you can milk it. The learning curve is practically zero, the ideas are proven or have known workarounds, and the tools are all free. Sites can even be built using 10-year-old computers you buy for under $100. That's the whole idea. Fast entry level into making stuff people really want and need. Flash and Frames were both created in the late 1990's. Browsers and search engines have adapted to Frames.

 

Yes. It's possible to support you and your family with a business overhead of less than $100 per month and no debt for capital expenditures. And, in a beautiful rural setting. Peaceful. Imagine it while I live it.

[Andrea]

How about you keep building in 1990 Frames and keep thinking you're ahead of everybody, and we keep using current standards. B.t.w., current standards also allow you to build excellent sites on '10-year-old computers you buy for under $100' - you don't even need any special software for it, Notepad will do nicely.

 

Have you ever even explored/considered using PHP includes to achieve the very 'benefits' that frames ones brought, back when there were no alternatives, but without any of the drawbacks that the use of frames brings?

 

And the use of Flash is a whole other story - didn't see anything on your site that couldn't have been done without Flash, and where the use of Flash brought any kind of benefit.

Yes. It's possible to support you and your family with a business overhead of less than $100 per month and no debt for capital expenditures. And, in a beautiful rural setting. Peaceful. Imagine it while I live it.

...and if you didn't use frames, your expenses would be higher?

[lm]

I think we review this website thoroughly enough to get the author to some kind of understanding on how web works. So if he needs to go further and discuss web design trend in general, lets move this thread to open forum.

This isn't a hobby. It's how I make my living people. I'm making money not art. Wake up! Look at legacy stuff and see how you can milk it.

It is not a place to get offensive when you want a review. We discuss best practices of coding here and not your very own opinion on making money. Again - on to Open forum please.

[jlhaslip]

I'm very curious to learn how you bookmarked your Framed pages. CSS, JS, PHP? Let me know, please. This would be useful information. A sample snippet would be a joy. How painful was the coding experience? Or a URL would be great.

 

By using position: fixed on the header and left-hand sidebar, then php includes for the main page content.

Works plenty fast enough for me (and the clients). Each page can be bookmarked since there are no complications from the Framed Doctype.

Postion: fixed can even work with the legacy IE6 Browser if you follow some Tutorials as found at cssplay.co.uk.

 

I'll post a Demo link when I find it. It was written several years ago, and I'll need to find it in my Archives.

Edited June 3, 2009 by jlhaslip

[newseed]

You still have the horizontal scroll issue for IE6. You can define a conditional comment for IE6 only in order to make adjustments without affecting the other browsers.

 

I am on a 20" 4x3 monitor using 1024px X 768px and on my other monitor it is 22" widescreen using 1280px X 768px.

 

As for the W3 stats, you will need to keep in mind that those stats can be misleading because they were gathered from visitors dedicated to web technologies. I believe the number of IE user is much greater among the average users.

 

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/05/april-2009-browser-stats-firefox-and-chrome-gain.ars

 

However, I believe the resolutions statics is fairly accurate.

 

 

Edit: I forgot to add this which is quite helpful in determining what is being used out there.

Edited June 3, 2009 by newseed

[LSW]

It is not Frame bashing, it is a dieing thing left over from the 90's.

 

Frames are only to be used with the frames DOCTYPE... you do not even use a doctype at all.

 

Frames do not exist in XHTML 1.1m nor does it seem to exhist at all in HTML 5 drafts at this point.

 

It has no future in web design.

[threebirds]

How about you keep building in 1990 Frames and keep thinking you're ahead of everybody, and we keep using current standards.

 

Okay. sounds good to me.

 

Have you ever even explored/considered using PHP includes to achieve the very 'benefits' that frames ones brought, back when there were no alternatives, but without any of the drawbacks that the use of frames brings?

 

Give me your pitch (or send me to a link) that convinces me of the alternative benefits. Enlighten me to why you think PHP includes would simplify my project turnaround time.

 

And the use of Flash is a whole other story - didn't see anything on your site that couldn't have been done without Flash, and where the use of Flash brought any kind of benefit.

 

You missed the "dynamic image resizing" made possible by embedded Flash. Change the browser screen size and watch how the it resizes to fit any window on-the-fly. A liquid site. That's THE major benefit. No vacuous space in the middle of the screen like many liquid sites.

 

You were originally not participating in this review. What made you change your mind?

[threebirds]

You still have the horizontal scroll issue for IE6. You can define a conditional comment for IE6 only in order to make adjustments without affecting the other browsers.

 

Yes. That is a solution. But a simple change of percentage will fix the problem on all browsers. No sniffing required and no problems or complexity. A low-tech (no-tech) solution.

 

I am on a 20" 4x3 monitor using 1024px X 768px and on my other monitor it is 22" widescreen using 1280px X 768px.

 

Hmm? You have the same size monitors and settings I have. Any ideas why you are seeing "NAVBAR" folding?

 

I believe the number of IE user is much greater among the average users.

 

That is your belief. Got any numbers? "I believe" Firefox is stronger than people realize and still gaining ground fast.

 

However, I believe the resolutions statics is fairly accurate.

 

So picking and choosing data that supports our feelings / intuition is okay? That works for me.

[PicnicTutorials]

Hi, I personally, could care absolutely less what you do or don't do with your website. It's your life, do with it as you please.

[threebirds]

Hi, I personally, could care absolutely less what you do or don't do with your website. It's your life, do with it as you please.

 

Thanks, Eric. You're a tolerant person. There are many ways to solve a problem. There is no one right, perfect way. I've gotten what I need from my review and the site is improved. That was the goal.

[newseed]

You still have the horizontal scroll issue for IE6. You can define a conditional comment for IE6 only in order to make adjustments without affecting the other browsers.

 

Yes. That is a solution. But a simple change of percentage will fix the problem on all browsers. No sniffing required and no problems or complexity. A low-tech (no-tech) solution.

It still did not solve your IE6 issue. You can see a snapshot of what I see here.

 

I am on a 20" 4x3 monitor using 1024px X 768px and on my other monitor it is 22" widescreen using 1280px X 768px.

 

Hmm? You have the same size monitors and settings I have. Any ideas why you are seeing "NAVBAR" folding?

The nav seems to be fixed in FX. Sometimes it can be as simple as 1px to cause the last nav button to drop down out of place.

 

I believe the number of IE user is much greater among the average users.

 

That is your belief. Got any numbers? "I believe" Firefox is stronger than people realize and still gaining ground fast.

If you have read the fine print for the browser stats link you gave you would have read this:

 

W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer' date=' since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.[/b']

These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.

 

Which is why I provide the W3Counter stats because the stats comes from thousands of domains of various business (or personal) types that records stats from visitors all kinds.

 

However, I believe the resolutions statics is fairly accurate.

 

So picking and choosing data that supports our feelings / intuition is okay? That works for me.

It doesn't matter if it supports my feelings or not. I like to find stats that I feel supports the average user and not a particular group such as the link you've provided which is more accurate for those that are far more interested in web development.

Edited June 3, 2009 by newseed

[threebirds]

It still did not solve your IE6 issue. You can see a snapshot of what I see

here.

 

Thanks for the screenshot, it's very helpful. I apologize for misleading you, I haven't fixed that problem yet. Tonight? What the image shows is the same problem described in many places online with various workaround solutions. So this confirms the cause. Thanks. Incidentally, what is your IE6 verison number? I'd really like to know so I can reproduce the error.

 

The nav seems to be fixed in FX. Sometimes it can be as simple as 1px to cause the last nav button to drop down out of place.

 

Thanks for letting me know the fix worked. I did change this last night.

 

About browser statistics. Here's what this market (users) actually have been using on a gateway page the client had me set up for downloads on another URL. Here's the percentages:

 

1. MSIE 52.7%

2. Firefox 39.2%

3. Safari 7.4%

4. Opera 0.6%

 

Unfortunately, no data between IE6 and IE7. Oh, well. But it does show how this market chooses to browse.

 

We've beat this dead horse long enough. You found problems that needed fixing (besides the Frames issues.) That's why I came here. You have a good brain. Thanks for lending it to me.

[newseed]

It still did not solve your IE6 issue. You can see a snapshot of what I seehere.

 

Thanks for the screenshot' date=' it's very helpful. I apologize for misleading you, I haven't fixed that problem yet. Tonight? What the image shows is the same problem described in many places online with various workaround solutions. So this confirms the cause. Thanks. Incidentally, what is your IE6 verison number? I'd really like to know so I can reproduce the error.[/quote']

I tested using IE 6.00.2900.2180 build

 

I also tested in IE8, Opera, Safari and Chrome which seems to render just fine.

 

About browser statistics. Here's what this market (users) actually have been using on a gateway page the client had me set up for downloads on another URL. Here's the percentages:

 

1. MSIE 52.7%

2. Firefox 39.2%

3. Safari 7.4%

4. Opera 0.6%

 

Unfortunately, no data between IE6 and IE7. Oh, well. But it does show how this market chooses to browse.

Regardless of the statistics, it's too bad that all the browsers do not render the code the same way when coded correctly. I'd just be happy when IE6 falls off entirely but it still looks like a few years away before that happens.

[threebirds]

It is not Frame bashing, it is a dieing thing left over from the 90's.

 

Frames are only to be used with the frames DOCTYPE... you do not even use a doctype at all.

 

Frames do not exist in XHTML 1.1m nor does it seem to exhist at all in HTML 5 drafts at this point.

 

It has no future in web design.

 

Such absolutism! That's terribly sad news for a lot of big sites who still use this outdated Frame technology. Do you think web committees can actually get them to discard something so entwined in the web today? Especially seeing as how these companies are the biggest players on the W3C committee? No need to answer that. You must believe this "idealism" or you wouldn't say frames have no future --even if they are still used in the present. I came here for a review and I got it. The prejudice against Frames was expected. I've had this Frame discussion with some brilliant people and I don't expect any converts from IT or programmers. It's just not the nature of their personalities to "break the rules." The DOCTYPE is easily implanted in the code but it is NOT needed for a functioning site. You're as overzealous about standards as I am about tricks and shortcuts.

 

You've contributed nothing new to this post. Just old knowledge and setting me up as a dumb Luddite martyr. Thanks.

[threebirds]

It still did not solve your IE6 issue. You can see a snapshot of what I seehere.

 

Thanks for the screenshot' date=' it's very helpful. I apologize for misleading you, I haven't fixed that problem yet. Tonight? What the image shows is the same problem described in many places online with various workaround solutions. So this confirms the cause. Thanks. Incidentally, what is your IE6 verison number? I'd really like to know so I can reproduce the error.[/quote']

I tested using IE 6.00.2900.2180 build

 

I also tested in IE8, Opera, Safari and Chrome which seems to render just fine.

 

About browser statistics. Here's what this market (users) actually have been using on a gateway page the client had me set up for downloads on another URL. Here's the percentages:

 

1. MSIE 52.7%

2. Firefox 39.2%

3. Safari 7.4%

4. Opera 0.6%

 

Unfortunately, no data between IE6 and IE7. Oh, well. But it does show how this market chooses to browse.

Regardless of the statistics, it's too bad that all the browsers do not render the code the same way when coded correctly. I'd just be happy when IE6 falls off entirely but it still looks like a few years away before that happens.

 

You really have gone the extra mile. Thanks. I appreciate you making me look good in my clients eyes.

[LSW]

Well the web changes fast and XHTML 5 and HTML 5 will eventually be the standards. Frames do not exist in them so it will be outdated in the new standards whether any one still chooses to use them. Nor is it prejudiced. My first and second web sites used frames as that is what was taught at the time. The web has moved on and moved away from many things we used to use. Frames had a use, that use is outdated hence they are not carried in the future standards.

 

You can use them, they will likely not break any browsers and time soon. This forum is forward looking, we believe in standards and best practice. Is a DOCTYPE required? No, you are right. But is ensures that as many browsers as possible show the web site as it should, in your case by dropping the DOCTYPE, your site shows in Quirks mode which can be a problem in some user agents.

 

The fact is Frames are only to be used with the Frames DOCTYPE, that is a fact, that is why it exists in the Standards.

 

Do you think web committees can actually get them to discard something so entwined in the web today? Especially seeing as how these companies are the biggest players on the W3C committee?

Yes I do. There are many things that have dissapeared that one group or the other pushed. Micro$oft is an original member of the W3C, they tried to force their standards and failed... now in IE8 they are taking up the mantal of W3C standards and nor M$ standards.

 

You must believe this "idealism" or you wouldn't say frames have no future --even if they are still used in the present.

Idealism? They are not in the current drafts of the future standards, so what future is that but with those who do not follow standards. As for today? They are in the standards to day so you can use them, but the numbers if those using them are drastically smaller than in 1999. As for the industry leads... they have sites so massive that it is a real issue to update them... but eventually they are relaunched and old code dropped.

 

IT or programmers. It's just not the nature of their personalities to "break the rules."

For the sake of it... I have been a programmer for only 1.5 years. I have been building web sites since 1999.So I am more a web designer who believes in standards and web accessibility than a programmer.

 

You've contributed nothing new to this post. Just old knowledge and setting me up as a dumb Luddite martyr.

I believe I pointed out that you do not have a DOCTYPE, I have now explained why it is important. If that is "nothing", it is only because it is something you did not wish to hear. You do not wish to hear about standards and are happy just doing what you like, your choice. I set you up for nothing, you have written enough here for people to have opinions about you without my help. All I did is state fact.

No DOCTYPE, Frames should be in a Frames DOCTYPE and frames are not in the current drafts of the next generation standards and therfore have no future. Anything else you are reading into it yourself.

[threebirds]

This is a better reply. You actually are teaching now instead of trashing. Much better. You do know of the provisions for future XFRAMES, correct? http://www.w3.org/TR/xframes/

 

The implementation is the same minus the negatives. This is the workaround of the future and a better solution. Then I will discard HTML Frames as will others. XFrames will be the fad for a moment.

 

But this is somewhat off topic. The topic is not about Frames viability in the future --but rather about a critique of a simple website that's essentially "disposable" once it has served it's purpose gathering market data. This is actually the prime goal. This is no web monument. This is built for a product in transition. Testing an old product in a new market. The site message will change.

 

Frames, in this case, provide a minimum lowtech investment. The site will be later repurposed. This is where the true innovation really is for the client-- saving money. The site "perception" is credible (even if it has no credibility in the IT community.) It serves it's purpose well for it's market. It is deliberately "clunky" looking. More like newsprint than 100% rag letterhead. This communicates something to the audience about it's volatility and urgency. It's the site "body language" --a certain user comfort in no-slickness and no pushy overselling. No site bloat.

 

Coming here for a review was to have extra eyes give harsh critiques knowing the limitations of Frames. I got what I wanted. The site is improved. The invisible code is not. I don't care about which brush I paint with. Some artists can paint with a spoon or their feet. It only makes their output more unique. Uniqueness has monetary value in differentiating products and services. Frames are weird and rarely used. That is the strategy. Something is different on a subliminal level. But it doesn't feel uncomfortable or strange to the uninitiated.

[threebirds]

Just a note of irony:

 

As pointed out on this forum, I had a horizontal scrollbar error that would occur in IE6. The pages that had the error had:

 

 

as the first line of code. After removing this, the error disappeared.

 

Have a nice day!

[threebirds]

It still did not solve your IE6 issue. You can see a snapshot of what I see here.

 

I just wanted you to know the solution to this horizontal scrolling problem. I did finally get my hands on the same build of IE6 you are using. Thanks. Couldn't have troubleshot the problem without it. It wasn't a percentage setting bug as thought.

 

The solution was removing this line of code:

 

 

It was at the top of all the errant pages. This code had been inserted by a WYSIWYG Linux when editing some of the pages. I thought it was benign --not so on IE6.

 

All fixed. Thanks so much for your insights. You cracked it.