...

View Full Version : Frame problem.



BOBCO
11-18-2008, 06:49 PM
I have 2 frames side by side.
<frameset cols="*,3*">
<frame frameborder="no" scrolling="no" name="leftpanel" src="leftpanel.htm" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<frame frameborder="no" scrolling="auto" name="rightpanel" src="rightpanel.htm" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
</frameset>
I need a frame above these that goes the width of the browser. I've tried nesting a frameset inside these but no go. I've even tried to put a 1 x 1 table above it. No go. Need help.

Pepe, the bull
11-18-2008, 07:12 PM
<html>

<frameset rows="50%,50%">

<frame src="frame_a.htm">

<frameset cols="25%,75%">
<frame src="frame_b.htm">
<frame src="frame_c.htm">
</frameset>

</frameset>

</html>

I think it's called a mixed frameset. I took this example from W3Schools (http://www.w3schools.com/HTML/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_frame_mix).

VIPStephan
11-18-2008, 07:25 PM
*shudder*

BOBCO
11-18-2008, 07:26 PM
That didn't work. The 2 columns show up but not the top row. Frontpage even removed the 2nd 50% argument from the first frameset.

Pepe, the bull
11-18-2008, 09:47 PM
I'm not sure what to tell you. If Frontpage is changing stuff, that might be part of the problem. The code I gave you works. I haven't really had much luck with frames, and I usually try to avoid them at all costs. Are you sure you need to use them? Or could you use a CSS layout?

Doctor_Varney
11-18-2008, 11:14 PM
I think your main problem with frames...

...is frames.

tosbourn
11-19-2008, 04:16 PM
I think your main problem with frames...

...is frames.

Not very helpful, but I have to agree - if the only consideration is for layout, you really should consider using CSS.

BOBCO
11-19-2008, 04:42 PM
Yep, frames is a pain in the @$$. The reason I decided to use frames is this: I have a header, footer and sidebar that remain constant. The only part that is variable is the remaining space(scrolling is also variable). And the loading time and transition of the variable info is seemless. You don't get that "blink" when a page is loading. To me, have multible copies of a page that differ only slightly in content is a waist of loading time and space. Obviously, I'm going about this all wrong. And could possibly have no idea of what I'm writing about. Would having a table with a cell that links to an object, where said object is variable, be the way to go? Or use <iframe></iframe> in a cell?

VIPStephan
11-19-2008, 06:53 PM
Haha, what irony to fix the frameset issue with a layout table. :D

Anyway, iframes are better than complete framesets but they are still frames. If you want the same functionality you should look into dynamic inclusion of HTML with JS and PHP (a. k. a. “AJAX”): http://dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex17/ajaxcontent.htm

Doctor_Varney
11-20-2008, 01:16 AM
Not very helpful, but I have to agree - if the only consideration is for layout, you really should consider using CSS.

Well...


I have a header, footer and sidebar that remain constant. The only part that is variable is the remaining space(scrolling is also variable)...

You don't get that "blink" when a page is loading. To me, have multible copies of a page that differ only slightly in content is a waist of loading time and space.


Well, with CSS, you can have multiple repeating elements. You just give them an ID and specify their rules (instructions for display) once only, in the stylesheet.

You can also apply scrolling to DIVs in their styling. The reasons you have gone for a frameset layout are also good reasons to start learning and using CSS.

Okay, so your HTML must have multiple copies of some things, across all pages. Whose site doesn't? Well, that's what >copy< & >paste< are for. It's usually still a lot less "stuff" than having old-skool HTML repeatedly loading it's presentation, as well as the content.

I can't speak for yours, obviously, but many sites often have only the navbar and header set static, for instance. If this is the case with yours, then you can specify background images and styling only once in the stylesheet. The advantages you're citing aren't really strong enough reasons for choosing a frames layout over a CSS one.


Yep, frames is a pain in the @$$.

Ah, there you are, you see... Now, if you are (as it would appear) inexperienced at writing framesets, you may be looking to spend many more stressful hours, trying to poke things into submission, with the added inevitibility of cross browser & resolution issues. Then there is the possibility, that if you want to take web-publishing seriously, you'll have to learn CSS one day, anyway... So, it might be best to quit now and start fresh with CSS. Unless, of course, you've absolutely GOT to get it finished by next week and resolving the problem is just a matter of a few percent here or there in the code.

The best use of frames I can think of, is for making sites which demonstrate how bad frames can be, to put people off using them (I do think they have their uses, in intranets or local systems, for instance, where one knows exactly the screen conditions they are headed for.)

Finally, in answer to your loading time issue: Properly made CSS and lean, semantic HTML simply loads faster than cluttered HTML anyway - and indeed, I think, exhibits faster and more efficient memory usage than with frame loading. Additionally, frames are the fast way to diminish your site's searchability and engine ranking, on the www.

As for table layouts... Well, I've found they take a hell of a long time to load (and look quite horrible, while they're doing so).

At the end of the day, it's just my opinion and you don't have to follow it and - although I haven't actually sorted out your frames problem directly, I sincerely hope that explanation is (or will be someday) helpful to you in the long run.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x103/Doctor_Varney/signature.gif

Doctor_Varney
11-20-2008, 01:19 AM
Haha, what irony to fix the frameset issue with a layout table. :D


Yes, I have to agree, it made me smile, too... Though, I doubt our OP came here in the hopes of being laughed at. :)

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x103/Doctor_Varney/signature.gif

jamesicus
11-20-2008, 02:09 AM
Web Content Accessibility (for People with Disabilities) considerations when using frames:

http://www.scotconnect.com/Training/frames.php
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/frames/
http://www.at.ufl.edu/accessibility/accessibility_cd/AccWeb/frames/frames.html

JFP

Doctor_Varney
11-20-2008, 02:27 AM
Web Content Accessibility (for People with Disabilities) considerations when using frames:

http://www.scotconnect.com/Training/frames.php
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/frames/
http://www.at.ufl.edu/accessibility/accessibility_cd/AccWeb/frames/frames.html

JFP

I'm not disabled but...


"As yet there has been no test case in the UK however in Australia and America lack large organisations have been successfully challenged - including Sydney Olympic Committee and America On Line. The Sydney Olympic Comittee was successfully taken to Court because disabled people could not access their Web site and AOL when challenged develope their America Online Accessibility Policy."


...Do you think I could take the author of this site to court...?
Because, I experienced a little er... difficulty accessing all of the words. :D

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x103/Doctor_Varney/signature.gif

Ibanez
11-20-2008, 01:18 PM
I find IFrames quite useful from time to time... Although google doesnt like them very much, but that can be fixed with a small JS

BOBCO
11-20-2008, 01:45 PM
I ended up using a single <iframe>. Works well. But I haven't tried it across any other platforms other than IE. With todays machines, taking into account speed and memory/disk usage probably aren't as critical as it was back in the day when your code was limited to 64k and your hard drive was the size of a shoe box.
I will get a book on CSS. Must update my DOS era mind also.

Ibanez
11-20-2008, 02:28 PM
Whats DOS? Hehehe :D
IE really doesnt play along, so why dont you download Firefox? If it works in Firefox (and IE) odds are it will work in the rest.

Doctor_Varney
11-21-2008, 10:25 AM
I ended up using a single <iframe>. Works well. But I haven't tried it across any other platforms other than IE. With todays machines, taking into account speed and memory/disk usage probably aren't as critical as it was back in the day when your code was limited to 64k and your hard drive was the size of a shoe box.
I will get a book on CSS. Must update my DOS era mind also.

I personally think i-frames are quite acceptable, though it's good practice to question yourself as to why you feel the need to use any kind of frame in a site at all. If it's to call info in, from another site, then fair enough. I don't feel most layouts should necessitate the use of i-frames, just in order to hang together. There are better and more robust ways. Check out what some browsers do, when it comes to scroll bars and hidden content. The results are not always favourable, so my advice is to use i-frames sparingly. In other words, you could just about bang a nail in with the end of a screwdriver, but it's better to use a hammer.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x103/Doctor_Varney/signature.gif



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum