Inline frames, die, die, die (aka please help!)

[Stefan]

This seemingly simple problem continues to drive me round the bend... Sorry
for the verbose note:

In my site (www.aaltenvoogd.com) I have included a discussion forum, blog,
chat and picture gallery by using inline frames. I'm aware they are a Bad
Thing. They cause (predictably...) problems in not resizing* how I want them
to and scrollbars appearing where I don't want them. I have tried to make the
best of a bad deal but it is not satisfactory. Also, I don't want the
forum/blog/etc. to overtake the entire window but to be contained in the
space I have allocated for it. For example, after logging in on the Forum it
opens in the whole window, leaving the user with no navigation to the rest of
my site.

What I would like to achieve, for each of these four sections of my site, is
to display them on a single page which uses my site design (little flashmovie
top left, global menu at the top, etc.) and has the content in the main
panel. If scrollbars are required then I would like these to appear in the
browser window, NOT in the frame inside the browser window.

I have explored the use of include pages and server side includes but these
don't achieve the desired effect either. The forum and picture gallery are
PHP files and "including" a PHP file does not have any effect at all (even
though my local system and my web host both have PHP correctly installed and
running) - you just get a blank page where the php should appear. The blog
points to my blog on a separate site.

I have posted questions about this here before and have had some help or
pointers but all to no avail unfortunately.

Using FrontPage 2003 and Dynamic Web Templates.

I would be very grateful for any help on this one!

Many thanks,
Stefan

* Frame resizing: width is set at 100% and horizontal resizing behaviour is
correct, but setting height to 100% the frame does not resize how it should
and I have therefore had to retain a fixed height.

 

[Kerala Ayurveda Treatments]

Try to use target frames to find out a solutions for your problem

Kerala Ayurveda Treatments
www.ayurvedatreatements.net
Ayurveda- A natural way to perfect health.

(e-mail address removed)

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

In order to include a PHP file in another page, the other page must be a .php page as well. This
applies to all server-side scripting languages, such as ASP, an ASP page can not be included in
..htm(l) page.

Another solution is just have these pages open in new browser window.

Even if you found a solution to your issue, you are still making it impossible for users to link
directly to the content of the item loaded in the IFrame, plus if you site is indexed by the search
engines, the links will go directly to the IFrame content, not your page with IFrame.

As far a the scrollbar, if it is associated with the IFrame, then it will appear with the IFrame, if
it is associated with the page, it will display for the page, this is how HTML works.

Most things we do on the web has tradeoffs or limitations that we have to live with when want to do
certain things, an frames is one of them.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================

 

[Murray]

Yepperee. IFrames have all of the same annoying problems as do frames.

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

If you really want to use the IFrame, then you need to design your pages with a fixed width table,
say 750 pixels, and then determine a fixed width and height for the IFrame which would be placed in
a table cell, allowing space for your page header, sidebar and footer, these 3 items could all be FP
Include Pages.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

Also since you want to use frames, why not just use a regular frameset which will solve the
scrollbar issue. This way you would have a static header and left sidebar.

Example:
http://www.ycoln-resources.com/kb/guides/features/graphics/_content/frame.htm

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================

 

[John]

Yepperee. IFrames have all of the same annoying problems as do frames.

And the same capabilities as well.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

[Murray]

If you want to call them that. Frames are rarely the right design choice
for any given site, however. The capabilities are (in my opinion and
experience) FAR outweighed by the many more disadvantages.

Which 'capabilities' did you have in mind, though?

 

[John]

If you want to call them that. Frames are rarely the right design choice
for any given site, however. The capabilities are (in my opinion and
experience) FAR outweighed by the many more disadvantages.

Which 'capabilities' did you have in mind, though?

IMO, they're much quicker to load than to persistently be
retrieving banners and menus or using scripts which are inevitably the
slowest alternative. Also they're more broadly supported than Java
Script and DHTML as frames are typically accessible even in Links.

So what are the disadvantages ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

The only time saving would be that you load a header, footer and sidebar once, however every content
page with associate images or other external content will still take time to load, and in general if
the header and footer and sidebar having limited graphics or other external content then you are
only saving a few seconds overall after the initial frameset loads.

JavaScript/DHTML and framesets are both support in all currently used graphical browsers. Java
Applets are not widely supported today.

Server-side scripting is browser independent.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================

 

[Murray]

The reason for using or not using frames should be based on a) your site's
needs, and b) your willingness to accept the potential problems that frames
can create for you as developer and maintainer of the site and for your
visitors as casual users of the site.

I am down on frames because I believe that they create many more problems
than they solve.
Judging from the posts here, and the kinds of problems that are described,
the kind of person most likely to elect to use frames is also the kind of
person most likely ill-prepared fo solve the ensuing problems when they
arise. If you feel a) that you understand the problems and b) that you are
prepared to handle them when they occur, and c) that you have a need to use
frames, then by all means use them.

As far as I know, the most comprehensive discussions of frames and their
potential problems can be found on these two links -

http://apptools.com/rants/framesevil.php
http://www.tjkdesign.com/resources/frames/

As for your advantages, see inline below.

--
Murray

IMO, they're much quicker to load than to persistently be
retrieving banners and menus or using scripts which are inevitably the
slowest alternative.

All of these items are cached after the first fetch - so in truth, a
non-framed page should load at about the same speed as a framed page
throughout the site. Both would suffer the same hit initially, but for
interior pages, everything is pulled from the cache.

Also they're more broadly supported than Java
Script and DHTML

That's really misinformation. You have to go back to v3 browsers to find
non-javascript ones. I doubt anybody worries about such antique browsers
any more.

as frames are typically accessible even in Links.

Sorry - I don't understand this one at all.

So what are the disadvantages ?

See above.

 

[John]

The only time saving would be that you load a header, footer and sidebar once, however every content
page with associate images or other external content will still take time to load, and in general if
the header and footer and sidebar having limited graphics or other external content then you are
only saving a few seconds overall after the initial frameset loads.

JavaScript/DHTML and framesets are both support in all currently used graphical browsers. Java
Applets are not widely supported today.

Server-side scripting is browser independent.

Thomas,

I'm well aware of your preference in this area. Let me ask
this, if you were just starting in web development which
language/scripting would you use ? As I recall you us VB Script, right
? I've been reviewing PHP but frankly I just don't think I have the
time to become proficient at it.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

[John]

The reason for using or not using frames should be based on a) your site's
needs, and b) your willingness to accept the potential problems that frames
can create for you as developer and maintainer of the site and for your
visitors as casual users of the site.

Agreed. This is one reason I went to frames in the first
place. They allowed me to add content very quickly and with a minimal
amount of effort.

As far as I know, the most comprehensive discussions of frames and their
potential problems can be found on these two links -

http://apptools.com/rants/framesevil.php
http://www.tjkdesign.com/resources/frames/

Redirected to :

http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/frames/

Thanks for the links. Good articles but as indicated there are
workarounds for each issue.

All of these items are cached after the first fetch - so in truth, a
non-framed page should load at about the same speed as a framed page
throughout the site. Both would suffer the same hit initially, but for
interior pages, everything is pulled from the cache.

Would this include Javascripted menu's ? I took the time to
setup one from Dynamic Drive on my site only to go to work and view it
on the PII/400 systems that we had at that time and found it
incredibly slow.

That's really misinformation. You have to go back to v3 browsers to find
non-javascript ones. I doubt anybody worries about such antique browsers
any more.

Is DHTML cross-platform/cross-browser friendly ?

Sorry - I don't understand this one at all.

LOL ! That's OK !

http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/

One of my friends is a scientist and still uses Links. He's on
a dialup and doesn't want anything from the 'net except info. He's
remarkably capable at finding patent info.

Thanks for your reply Murray.

John

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

John,

The reason my preference is the Windows platform and for scripting ASP/VBScript, is that I came from
the Bell System, where Unix was used and I truly disliked the command line interface and VI and
EMACS (sp?) editors.

Anyway, for new developers, etc. it all depends on what is supported by their web host, unless they
are willing to switch host or hosting packages. I would tend to go with a host that supports either
Windows or Unix/Linux but not one that supports both, as the knowledge for supporting one should be
better than the knowledge available trying to support both OSs.

All of the current scripting languages can do the same thing, just by different coding methods, and
all are available on both platforms, but do have platform limitation. Example you can run
ASP/VBScript on Unix/Linux, but you can not use Access or Excel as a data source.

One advantage to using ASP/VBScript/Access (Windows Hosting), is that you will find a lot more
support here in this newsgroup, then you will find for PHP and any other scripting language.

Plus you can use the FP database components, which I don't really recommend for other than very
basic things. Note: There are folks that have done so amazing things/workaround with the FP database
components, but it takes a lot more time and effort, then if you learn to hand code to begin with.
--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================

 

[Murray]

Inline below -

--
Murray

Agreed. This is one reason I went to frames in the first
place. They allowed me to add content very quickly and with a minimal
amount of effort.

But the problem with frames is only partially about you. They are often
much more problematic for your visitor than for you.

Redirected to :

http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/frames/

Thanks - I have made that change.

Thanks for the links. Good articles but as indicated there are
workarounds for each issue.

Yes, and if you have multiple issues, you have to apply one tedious
workaround after another. It's the slippery slope into frameset hell.

Would this include Javascripted menu's ? I took the time to
setup one from Dynamic Drive on my site only to go to work and view it
on the PII/400 systems that we had at that time and found it
incredibly slow.

It certainly could. Personally I would not use an all javascript menu at
all on any commercial site. They add another whole level of complexity and
problems to things. Menus are so easy to build in dHTML without using a
'system' that there's no reason not to.

Is DHTML cross-platform/cross-browser friendly ?

Sure - it's at least as cross-platform/cross-browser friendly. DHTML is
just javsacript and HTML. All even sorta antique browsers support it.

LOL ! That's OK !

http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/

One of my friends is a scientist and still uses Links. He's on
a dialup and doesn't want anything from the 'net except info. He's
remarkably capable at finding patent info.

You mean "LYNX". It's like a text only browser. A well done dhtml menu
should degrade beautifully in Lynx.

Take a look here -

http://www.murraytestsite.com/stone/menu.html

This (in my opinion) is the BEST dHTML menu I have ever seen. Look at it in
Firefox first with no styles and then with no styles and no javascript, and
you'll see what I mean. It is usable in either case.

 

[Bob Lehmann]

It's Lynx, not Links.

Bob Lehmann

Agreed. This is one reason I went to frames in the first
place. They allowed me to add content very quickly and with a minimal
amount of effort.



Redirected to :

http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/frames/

Thanks for the links. Good articles but as indicated there are
workarounds for each issue.


Would this include Javascripted menu's ? I took the time to
setup one from Dynamic Drive on my site only to go to work and view it
on the PII/400 systems that we had at that time and found it
incredibly slow.


Is DHTML cross-platform/cross-browser friendly ?


LOL ! That's OK !

http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/

One of my friends is a scientist and still uses Links. He's on
a dialup and doesn't want anything from the 'net except info. He's
remarkably capable at finding patent info.

Thanks for your reply Murray.

John

 

[Murray]

FWIW, EMACS saved my bacon more than once. But that's another thread.... 8)

 

[Bob Lehmann]

Yepperee. IFrames have all of the same annoying problems as do frames.

For sure.

See this site - http://www.innovosecurity.com and take a look at menu.js and
states.js.

I do ASP programming for an HTML guy. His client insisted on this.

NOTE: This site also has alot of Flash, so you will need the plug-in to
view.

Bob Lehmann

 

[Murray]

It's a nice looking site. I wouldn't have done it that way. A search
engine cannot find any of those inner pages. Since there is no content on
the home page, and since all the rest of the links are embedded in
javascript, the page rank is about zero, and likely to stay there.

 

[Bob Lehmann]

I know. Neither would have I.

But, as I said, orders from headquarters on this one.

Although, it did provide a nice check upon completion.

Bob Lehmann