Re: frames

At 12:10 15/11/98 +0000, moonraker wrote:
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=
-=3D
Hello fellow theorists!

I joined this group around 5 weeks ago and, apart from an attempt to get
things going from J.Mark, I haven't had any mail.

Assuming that this is because the list is quiet, can I ask you all about
the philosophy you hold about frames? If using frames, has the time come to
ignore people who use non-frame browsers, or are there still a substantial
number to cater for? What are your views?

I apologise if this has recently been thrashed to death, but as I say, I am
new.

regards,
BOB (McClelland)
CORNWALL (England)
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=
-=3D
Hey Bob,
Yeah your right about this list being quiet -- it does get is spurts once
in a while...

I'm sure everyone will have their own opinions about the use of frames --=20
when/why/where to have them; how to use them etc. ... etc. ...

The best way thing to do first -- decide who your market is. We've found
that most people only surf with what the originally received. If they get
an upgrade from their ISP, then they'll upgrade. There's still a fair
number of users which are computer-phobic; so don't expect them to be
upgrading with every new version.=20

There are a couple of large financial institutions here in Canada which aim
for version 2.0 browsers. It's only been this past year since we've [
http://autonet.ca ) moved to framed sites -- we'll be implementing a
dynamic work-around for non-frame browsers in the next couple of weeks.



Dougie.
Doin' Design and Development.=99

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA