<mkear> Frames are a real bitch for anyone sight-impaired using </mkear>

<walter>Using the slang word for a female dog is NOT acceptable in a
business
>discussion </walter>

Not wishing to start a flame war but both Webster AND the OED approve of the
context in which 'bitch' was used here. The OED says 'of things, something
outstandingly difficult or unpleasant'. In fact according to the OED, the
word has been used continuosly in this context since 1400!

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Kesting" <kesting(at)mindspring.com>
To: <mkear(at)afpwebworks.com>; "'Ken Cole'"
<ken.cole(at)smiths-aerospace.com.au>; <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: Frames - To Use Or Not To Use


> Do we REALLY have to use foul language in these discussions?
>
> Using the slang word for a female dog is NOT acceptable in a business
> discussion or in conversation with ladies present and is abusive to them.
> The word implies the attempt to equate a problem in language coding that
> then becomes a malicious, spiteful, or domineering woman.
>
> It is language used in a school yard or in a locker room or at a pub
amongst
> drinking partners.  That word is an insult to our ladies, to our Mothers,
> Sisters, Wives and Daughters, all of whom we should be protecting rather
> than insulting.
>
> Can we not use the word "bear" or "problem" or another such word?
>
> Your logic used in your message about the original question is helpful.
> Your opinion on the subject matter is sound but WHY do you have to reduce
> yourself (and readers who could be children) to the use of gutter language
> is beyond my ken.
>
> You are intelligent and articulate.  You obviously have excellent skills
in
> your work area.  Please lets try to keep this site clean.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Walter Kesting
> Pax Et Bonum
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Mike Kear
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:45 AM
> To: Ken Cole; hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: RE: Frames - To Use Or Not To Use
>
>
> Frames are a real bitch for anyone sight-impaired using the software to
read
> a site out aloud for the user.  Just as long navigation bars are.
>
>
> For this reason, I've adopted a non-frames policy.  ( I work with cold
> Fusion mostly and  you don't need it anyway.) The main reason a developer
> would use frames in my opinion is to reduce the amount of coding, and to
> reuse code.  And so that when a change occurs you don't have to go through
a
> gazillion pages making the same change over and over.   So if you use
> server-side includes - a snip with coldfusion, asp, and php -  you have
one
> sub-file with all the navigation bars (or whatever it is you want to
reuse)
> and it's included in every page.  Change that and bingo all the pages are
> updated instantly and reliably.   With the big sites, they're using
dynamic
> techniques,  building the pages programmatically as you browse, so they
> don't need frames for that purpose.  Asp and ColdFusion and PHP allow you
to
> build the page on the fly, so frames don't really offer a great advantage
> from a development perspective.
>
>
> And by getting rid of frames, there's one level of complexity gone.  You
> don't have to sweat dealing with scroll bars that might appear in the
middle
> of your page.    When you have frames you have to be very careful of sizes
> of everything for the different resolutions, so you don't either get
scroll
> bars or have parts of your page inaccessible because part is below the
frame
> border.
>
>
> I inherited a frames site, and one thing I've noticed about it is that it
> takes a lot longer to get to a specific section of the site, because I
have
> to go to the home page first,  then use a nav link to get to the section I
> want to see.  I can't just type in the url and go there.   So it means
that
> users can't bookmark that section.  This might or might not be a good
thing
> for you, depending on how you want users to access your site.
>
>
>
> As a small aside,  leading from that sight-impaired thing, one thing
that's
> a real boon for sight-impaired people is a tiny link at the very top of
the
> page, just under the body tag that links to the main content of the page,
> and jumps over all the navigation.  So you have a 1 pixel transparent
> graphic right under the body tag, and it links to the first word of the
> content.  It's label is something like 'jump to content'.
>
>
> If you want to take account of accessibility for disabled, you would do
well
> to watch a blind person work your site.  I did a few months ago, and it
was
> a revelation, I can tell you!   We had a demonstrator come in from the
> Institute for the Blind, and go through our site while we all watched.
> Some of the things we thought were rather clever, did nothing but put trip
> wires in front of him.  So with small changes to the site, such as putting
> that little link at the top,  we made the site much more pleasant for
blind
> people.
>
>
> And one of the lessons I learnt from that demonstration was to do away
with
> frames completely.  They are navigable, but they are a pain in the ...
well
> they annoy them.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Mike Kear
> Windsor, NSW, Australia
> AFP WebWorks
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On
> Behalf Of Ken Cole
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:21 AM
> To: hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: Frames - To Use Or Not To Use
>
> G'Day Everyone,
>
> Firstly I hope this is the correct forum for this question.  Secondly I
> am not trying to start nor wish to start a religous war.
>
> Can someone point me to some good and unbiased views on the pros and
> cons of using frames?
>
> Should I, Shouldn't I?
> What about frameless browsers?
> Any security reasons why to/not to use?
> Anything else I should consider?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ken Cole
>

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

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