«

Hi, folks,

I'm very much a beginning web author struggling to get something presentable
up for myself and I'm having a little issue with frames.

I've divided my page up into four frames: 1) a top frame for navigation, 2)
a bottom frame for, well, a bottom frame, and 3) & 4) a left- and right-hand
frame in between the two so that my content (in the right middle frame) can
scroll independently of the others.

My immediate problem is the graphic that's split between the bottom frame
and the left middle frame - I can't seem to get it to reliably seat itself
at the bottom of that frame so that it combines seamlessly with the graphic
in the bottom frame. It works just fine in Internet Explorer but not at all
in Netscape/Mozilla browsers.

It hadn't been working in IE, either, until a friend suggested using a 1-row
by 1-column bottom-aligned table to hold the graphic. Is there a trick to
getting elements to sit on the bottom of a frame in Netscape? I'd like it to
stay at the bottom of the frame whenever the viewer resizes the browser
window, of course.

Here's a link so y'all can see what I'm talking about:

http://www.paulmccomas.com/test/frameset.html

(Nothing's active yet - it's just an unlinked template page for testing.)

Thanks for taking a look! Any help would be appreciated...

Neal
--
"If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous

Video Flyer wrote in message ...
> My immediate problem is the graphic that's split between the bottom frame
> and the left middle frame - I can't seem to get it to reliably seat
itself
> at the bottom of that frame so that it combines seamlessly with the
graphic
> in the bottom frame. It works just fine in Internet Explorer.

So why don't you just get rid of that bottom frame :~(

Talk about making things difficult for yourself.

On 2/16/04 10:57 AM, in article
nE6Yb.253$, "Steve R."
<> wrote:

> Video Flyer wrote in message ...
>> My immediate problem is the graphic that's split between the bottom frame
>> and the left middle frame - I can't seem to get it to reliably seat
> itself
>> at the bottom of that frame so that it combines seamlessly with the
> graphic
>> in the bottom frame. It works just fine in Internet Explorer.
>
> So why don't you just get rid of that bottom frame :~(
>
> Talk about making things difficult for yourself.
>
>


That was helpful. Thanks. (^_^)

Neal
--
"If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous

Video Flyer <> wrote in news:BC564BF6.73F4%:

> I'm very much a beginning web author struggling to get something
> presentable up for myself and I'm having a little issue with frames.
>
> I've divided my page up into four frames: 1) a top frame for
> navigation, 2) a bottom frame for, well, a bottom frame, and 3) & 4) a
> left- and right-hand frame in between the two so that my content (in
> the right middle frame) can scroll independently of the others.
>
> My immediate problem is the graphic that's split between the bottom
> frame and the left middle frame - I can't seem to get it to reliably
> seat itself at the bottom of that frame so that it combines seamlessly
> with the graphic in the bottom frame. It works just fine in Internet
> Explorer but not at all in Netscape/Mozilla browsers.

I think your best bet is to stop thinking in terms of "frames" (that is,
the rather problematic HTML construct involving framesets) and start
thinking in terms of "sections." That will let you get away from the
rather thankless and fragile task of trying to make separate images
from separate documents line up into one, while maintaining the same "look
and feel."

If you use CSS properly, you can create a page that looks like it's divided
into separate areas but consists of a single HTML document. And then you
can use *one* image and position it rather than trying to join two of them.
And you can still achieve the scrolling middle section, though you might
want to consider whether it really makes the best use of screen real
estate.

Video Flyer wrote:
> On 2/16/04 10:57 AM, in article
> nE6Yb.253$, "Steve R."
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>Video Flyer wrote in message ...
>>
>>>My immediate problem is the graphic that's split between the bottom frame
>>>and the left middle frame - I can't seem to get it to reliably seat
>>
>>itself
>>
>>>at the bottom of that frame so that it combines seamlessly with the
>>
>>graphic
>>
>>>in the bottom frame. It works just fine in Internet Explorer.
>>
>>So why don't you just get rid of that bottom frame :~(
>>
>>Talk about making things difficult for yourself.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> That was helpful. Thanks. (^_^)
>
> Neal


The really helpful, professional people in this newsgroup will tell you
that the best thing to do is to ditch entirely all frames, to validate
all your pages, to stop using GoLive, to avoid table design and to start
learning HTML 4.01. And I really think you should listen to them.

DU
--
"The human spirit works like a parachute: it works when it's opened."
American saying

Video Flyer wrote:

> Hi, folks,

> I'm very much a beginning web author struggling to get something
> presentable up for myself and I'm having a little issue with frames.

> I've divided my page up into four frames: 1) a top frame for navigation,
> 2) a bottom frame for, well, a bottom frame, and 3) & 4) a left- and
> right-hand frame in between the two so that my content (in the right
> middle frame) can scroll independently of the others.

> My immediate problem is the graphic that's split between the bottom frame
> and the left middle frame - I can't seem to get it to reliably seat
> itself at the bottom of that frame so that it combines seamlessly with
> the graphic in the bottom frame. It works just fine in Internet Explorer
> but not at all in Netscape/Mozilla browsers.

> It hadn't been working in IE, either, until a friend suggested using a
> 1-row by 1-column bottom-aligned table to hold the graphic. Is there a
> trick to getting elements to sit on the bottom of a frame in Netscape?
> I'd like it to stay at the bottom of the frame whenever the viewer
> resizes the browser window, of course.

> Here's a link so y'all can see what I'm talking about:

> http://www.paulmccomas.com/test/frameset.html

> (Nothing's active yet - it's just an unlinked template page for testing.)

> Thanks for taking a look! Any help would be appreciated...

> Neal
> --
> "If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous


iframes suck.

You'd be better off using simple divisions.
Then you can position the graphics better and they will remain in place
regardless of screen size.
Nest divisions as needed.
If you want to change the content of a division without changing the page,
use layers and z-index.

On 2/16/04 11:44 AM, in article , "Richard"
<anonymous@127.000> wrote:

> Video Flyer wrote:
>
>> Hi, folks,
>
>> I'm very much a beginning web author struggling to get something
>> presentable up for myself and I'm having a little issue with frames.
>
>> I've divided my page up into four frames: 1) a top frame for navigation,
>> 2) a bottom frame for, well, a bottom frame, and 3) & 4) a left- and
>> right-hand frame in between the two so that my content (in the right
>> middle frame) can scroll independently of the others.
>
>> My immediate problem is the graphic that's split between the bottom frame
>> and the left middle frame - I can't seem to get it to reliably seat
>> itself at the bottom of that frame so that it combines seamlessly with
>> the graphic in the bottom frame. It works just fine in Internet Explorer
>> but not at all in Netscape/Mozilla browsers.
>
>> Thanks for taking a look! Any help would be appreciated...
>
>> Neal
>> --
>> "If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous
>
>
> iframes suck.
>
> You'd be better off using simple divisions.
> Then you can position the graphics better and they will remain in place
> regardless of screen size.
> Nest divisions as needed.
> If you want to change the content of a division without changing the page,
> use layers and z-index.
>
>
>


Okay, hang on a sec. Layers and z-index are CSS, right? Would you use
Javascript to accomplish the hide-and-show? Also, if I were to use this
method, would it be necessary to pre-load all of the content for the various
"pages" (which would now all be contained in one page)? Like I say, I'm
pretty wet behind the ears - know just enough to be dangerous.

DU -
As for my use of GoLive, it's the tool I've got available. I'm not nearly
fluent enough in HTML to code this stuff from scratch and can't really
afford to splash for a new app right now. Or is this group for the hardcore
coders who poo-poo WYSIWYG tools altogether? If so, I'm probably in the
wrong place.

The books I've consulted have been unanimous in their praise of tables as a
tool for assembling graphics within an HTML document and, relatively
speaking, I find them to be pretty easy. CSS and DHTML looked pretty
daunting to this graphic guy's eyes.

Oh, and what do you mean when you say "validate all pages?" Run the code
through some app that checks all of your syntax and links? What would you
recommend?

Thanks for the feedback, everyone - I can use all the help I can get! lol

Neal
--
"If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:17:42 GMT, Video Flyer <> declared
in alt.html:
>
> Okay, hang on a sec. Layers and z-index are CSS, right?

Kind of. Layers is a bad term to use, because it can be used for so many
different things, but that is probably what Richard was talking about
(in general it is best to ignore him, as his advice is usually... well,
wrong).
http://dorward.me.uk/www/layers/

> Would you use Javascript to accomplish the hide-and-show?

Not if it is necessary. Don't forget Javascript is an optional extra -
it may be disabled/unavailable for a significant portion of your
visitors. What are you actually trying to achieve? Chances are there is
a better way to do it.

> Also, if I were to use this
> method, would it be necessary to pre-load all of the content for the various
> "pages" (which would now all be contained in one page)?

Probably; see my question above.

> Like I say, I'm
> pretty wet behind the ears - know just enough to be dangerous.

We'll sure you of that in no time.

> As for my use of GoLive, it's the tool I've got available. I'm not nearly
> fluent enough in HTML to code this stuff from scratch and can't really
> afford to splash for a new app right now.

There are plenty of good free HTML editors out there...

> Or is this group for the hardcore
> coders who poo-poo WYSIWYG tools altogether? If so, I'm probably in the
> wrong place.

....but not WYSINWIG ones. Most of the regulars here far prefer
text-based editors, and those that do use WYSINWIG tools tend to spend a
lot of time in the code anyway. It's the best way to do it.

>
> The books I've consulted have been unanimous in their praise of tables as a
> tool for assembling graphics within an HTML document and, relatively
> speaking, I find them to be pretty easy.

Of course they praise tables - that's the way it was done ten years ago
when the writers probably learnt HTML. But there is now a better way.
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

> CSS and DHTML looked pretty daunting to this graphic guy's eyes.

It requires a completely different way of thinking. The actual coding
isn't that hard. It's the perception shift that is the difficult bit.
You have to stop thinking of the web as DTP, and embrace its inherent
fluidity.

>
> Oh, and what do you mean when you say "validate all pages?" Run the code
> through some app that checks all of your syntax and links? What would you
> recommend?

Yes. http://validator.w3.org/

> Thanks for the feedback, everyone - I can use all the help I can get! lol

Spend plenty of time here then. As long as you are willing to learn, we
will be willing to help.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

On 2/16/04 4:05 PM, in article ,
"Mark Parnell" <> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:17:42 GMT, Video Flyer <> declared
> in alt.html:
>>
> What are you actually trying to achieve? Chances are there is
> a better way to do it.


I've wrapped the answer to this up with another below....


>> Like I say, I'm
>> pretty wet behind the ears - know just enough to be dangerous.
>
> We'll sure you of that in no time.


Excellent! Thanks! (^_^)


>> As for my use of GoLive, it's the tool I've got available. I'm not nearly
>> fluent enough in HTML to code this stuff from scratch and can't really
>> afford to splash for a new app right now.
>
> There are plenty of good free HTML editors out there...


Can you recommend one? I'm on Mac, by the by...


>> Or is this group for the hardcore
>> coders who poo-poo WYSIWYG tools altogether? If so, I'm probably in the
>> wrong place.
>
> ...but not WYSINWIG ones. Most of the regulars here far prefer
> text-based editors, and those that do use WYSINWIG tools tend to spend a
> lot of time in the code anyway. It's the best way to do it.
>
>>
>> The books I've consulted have been unanimous in their praise of tables as a
>> tool for assembling graphics within an HTML document and, relatively
>> speaking, I find them to be pretty easy.
>
> Of course they praise tables - that's the way it was done ten years ago
> when the writers probably learnt HTML. But there is now a better way.
> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
>
>> CSS and DHTML looked pretty daunting to this graphic guy's eyes.
>
> It requires a completely different way of thinking. The actual coding
> isn't that hard. It's the perception shift that is the difficult bit.
> You have to stop thinking of the web as DTP, and embrace its inherent
> fluidity.


Erp. I thought that was what I was trying to do with the frameset. The idea
was to create a design that would re-flow with the resizing of the browser
window rather than to create a static, always-the-same-dimensions-and-aspect
design which, to my mind, would be more like the DTP mindset. But I'm a
designer so my first thought IS, I'll admit, always to exercise as much
control over HOW the elements re-flow as possible to try to maintain the
integrity of the design.

The site is to be a portfolio of my work. The plan was (is) for most of the
content to happen in the middle right frame with the middle left frame
providing a healthy amount of somewhat incongruously named (in this case)
'white space.' Meanwhile, the top and bottom frames would always be anchored
to the top and bottom of the browser window to....well, yes....to frame the
content.

I constructed my graphics specifically so that the two parts of the blocks
(in my example) WILL line up correctly so long as the portion in the middle
left frame can be made to sit at the bottom of the frame. And, in fact, this
does work perfectly in Internet Explorer on both Windows and Mac (at least,
has in my testing thus far). I just can't seem to get it to work in
Netscape/Mozilla browsers.


>> Oh, and what do you mean when you say "validate all pages?" Run the code
>> through some app that checks all of your syntax and links? What would you
>> recommend?
>
> Yes. http://validator.w3.org/

Thanks for the link! Indeed, for all of the links. I tried this one and it
said it couldn't validate the code. Of course, that was for the frameset
itself - haven't tried it with the component pages yet.

>
>> Thanks for the feedback, everyone - I can use all the help I can get! lol
>
> Spend plenty of time here then. As long as you are willing to learn, we
> will be willing to help.


I'm most willing to learn......I just may be a little slow, is all. I've
done some simple CBT programming in Toolbook and Director as well as a
little tweaking of HTML but I'm no programmer by any stretch.

You've given much to digest and I hope there's more to come. Thanks for the
detailed response!

Neal
--
"If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:08:59 GMT, Video Flyer <> declared
in alt.html:

> Erp. I thought that was what I was trying to do with the frameset. The idea
> was to create a design that would re-flow with the resizing of the browser
> window rather than to create a static, always-the-same-dimensions-and-aspect
> design which, to my mind, would be more like the DTP mindset. But I'm a
> designer so my first thought IS, I'll admit, always to exercise as much
> control over HOW the elements re-flow as possible to try to maintain the
> integrity of the design.

A good place to start: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Frames really have nothing to do with whether the site is fluid or not.
But they do cause all sorts of other problems.

http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzo...eb/frames.html
http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/
http://www.google.com/webmasters/2.html (see under "Your page uses
frames")

> The site is to be a portfolio of my work. The plan was (is) for most of the
> content to happen in the middle right frame with the middle left frame
> providing a healthy amount of somewhat incongruously named (in this case)
> 'white space.'

Easily done with CSS.

> Meanwhile, the top and bottom frames would always be anchored
> to the top and bottom of the browser window to....well, yes....to frame the
> content.

That can be done using CSS, though not entirely reliably (position:
fixed; would be the easiest, except IE's failure to support it makes it
rather hard, though there are Javascript workarounds). But fixing the
top and bottom of a page isn't necessarily a good idea anyway.

> I constructed my graphics specifically so that the two parts of the blocks
> (in my example) WILL line up correctly so long as the portion in the middle
> left frame can be made to sit at the bottom of the frame. And, in fact, this
> does work perfectly in Internet Explorer on both Windows and Mac (at least,
> has in my testing thus far). I just can't seem to get it to work in
> Netscape/Mozilla browsers.

Chances are your code is the problem then. IE is not a good test
browser. Test it in IE (and tweak if necessary) once it is working in
Mozilla.

> I'm most willing to learn......I just may be a little slow, is all. I've
> done some simple CBT programming in Toolbook and Director as well as a
> little tweaking of HTML but I'm no programmer by any stretch.

That's OK, I'm not either. But HTML (and CSS) aren't programming
languages.

> You've given much to digest and I hope there's more to come. Thanks for the
> detailed response!

No worries. Glad to help.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au