[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: [uk-netmarketing] RE: The Rules
From: Felix Velarde
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:07:50 -0000

I would have thought that two compelling reasons not to use frames
are firstly; that web users resize the font in their browser at some
time or other. We all do, all the time, mainly because northern
European design favours fonts we can't read, or a font has been
specified that we don't have on our mac, PC, UNIX box, Linux box or
other machine the developer didn't use. The consequence of resizing
the text is that sometimes it will mean the visitor will have to
scroll to read the (navigation/text or whatever) content of the
frame, the graphic below the text, and so on.

A further gremlin appears if you have switched off scrolling in the
frame specification of the page, rendering parts of your frame hidden.

Secondly, it is difficult to organise a frame-built site so that it
can be indexed by search engines. Which means that even if your
target visitor has the same machine, screen resolution, browser and
font size as the one the site was built in, they won't be able to
find it unless you throw additional cash at the site to make an
alternative search engine friendly version (a further consequence of
which is that updating the site will be twice as complicated). In
which case, why not throw said cash at designing the site properly in
the first place.


At 12:15 am +0000 on 26/1/01, James Cridland wrote:

>From: <leeatdjindex [dot] com>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong but legally we are not allowed to use frames
>because ALL sites have to comply to disabled access laws and, as explained,
>frames are no good for the visually impaired.<<
>Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's not _frames_ which are no good, it's
>the software that the visually-impaired browsers use, in this instance.
>Ergo, if their software won't read out "I have found two frames - pagemenu
>and pagecontent", then that's a software issue and not the problem of the
>website author.
>Perhaps more obviously, nasty things like Flash or non-resizable screen
>fonts _are_ worth worrying about for visually-impaired users. Removing the
>Flash, and making the fonts re-sizeable (size=2 rather than size=10pt) is
>pretty easy. (Though I currently sit in a greenhouse. Put those stones down.
>We're working on it.)
>Is this getting off-topic? Mmm, thought so.
>James Cridland, Editorial Director
>MediaUK.com Ltd
>62 St Martins Lane, London WC2N 4JS
>Tel: 020 7257 8520 Fax: 020 7900 3461


Felix Velarde, CEO, Head New Media office + 44 (0)20 7737 7579
http://www.head-newmedia.com mobile + 44 (0)777 557 2000

  Re: [uk-netmarketing] RE: The Rules, Sam Carrington

  [uk-netmarketing] RE: The Rules, lee
  Re: [uk-netmarketing] RE: The Rules, James Cridland

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]