Re: more on frames

>At 06:41 p.m. 11/20/98 +0000, moonraker wrote:
>>AESTHETICS
>>Clearly a lot of people don't like frames! Putting to one side those who
>>are visually impaired for a moment, I cannot understand this at all.
>>Obviously, as has been said, they can be overdone and used as a gimmick,
>>but when done with a bit of flair and skill I think they are a marvellous
>>way of navigating.

And at 12:07 20/11/98 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>When done right -- perhaps.  However, maybe 10% of the websites out
>there need this, and of those, perhaps 10% of them do it correctly.

Yep - agree totally!  In fact I agree with everything Kynn has said in this
post (but I've snipped for the sake of brevity - hey Kynn, this must be
contagious *g* - first Michael, now me :)

It is extremely rarely for me to use frames in a site.  Don't get me wrong,
they have particular uses at times, and can be extremely beneficial.
Unfortunately most sites I have seen with their implementation fall well
short of ideal.

Still, I suppose at the end of the day, one has to consider the potential
"market" for such a site.  If your intended audience is happy using frames,
then it isn't really a problem.  

Caution: After spending 3 hours last week with U3A people - believe me!!
there is a rapidly growing population on the internet with NO IDEA how to
even scroll, let alone navigate using frames.  I was pulling my hair out in
great handfulls by the end of the class!

If they can't even scroll, imagine how poorly designed frames could (and
did) confuse these poor souls, esp regarding their ability to return to a
site they liked.


Chris Higgs <c.higgs(at)landfood.unimelb.edu.au>
Institute of Land and Food Resources
University of Melbourne
http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au

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