Frames-Oriented Question

First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should be
enough said, hm?

Now my question. I'm interested in changing my pages in order that a
three-tier control process goes into place. It would be like the following
from top to bottom frames:

1. Title Banner frame. Holds logo.
2. Icon Menu frame. Has icons for sections of the site.
3. Tab Submenu frame. Has tabs for subsections of the sections selected by
the Icon Menu #2.
4. Contents frame. Shows content selected via the Tab Submenu frame. Also
navigated with bookmarks inside each contents page shown - only within
single page if at all.
5. Footer frame. Holds clickable buttons for supported causes (like the EFF
for instance).

In my first conceptualization of this, the Title Banner always stays the
same. In the second revision, it changes depending on which item off the
Icon Menu is chosen.

The Icon Menu controls what is displayed in the Tab Submenu. In the second
revision this menu affects what is shown in the Title Banner frame.

The Tab Submenu frame has tabs representing subsections of the sections
delineated by the Icon Menu. For instance, I have a Gallery chosen at Icon
Menu level. There are subsections of it, one for each type of cartoon to be
viewed ("Business", "Computers", "Showbiz", "Editorial" and so on), and the
selection of each causes a different contact sheet of thumbnails to be
viewable in the Contents frame.

The Contents frame shows whatever is selected, first, in the Tab Submenu
frame. In the case of the Gallery icon, and its attendant Submenu of
cartoon types, a contact sheet of thumbnails is shown in the Contents frame.
Clicking on the thumbnails of course shows the graphic-in-question, with
navigation buttons to go backwards and forwards in the set of graphics shown
in the contact sheet.

The Footer frame stays the same at all times.

The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First, sections
of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
bookmark use a dark comedy. Navigation has a potential for complicating out
of the realm of manageability whenever I add anything at this point. Tabs
are becoming more of a standard paradigm all the time, and compact enough on
the screen to be quite attractive for use.

Second, utilizing this structure makes it easier to manage, because less of
it changes as a result of simply adding a new song or cartoon to the
selectables involved.

Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here. Thanks
in advance.

--
Steve Goodman
* EarthLight Productions
* http://www.earthlight.net

Revd. Norle Enturbulata

in post: <news:AHUcc.270$>
"Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> said:

> First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

but... but... but...

--
b r u c i e

"Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

>First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should be
>enough said, hm?

This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
them.

>Now my question.

In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
actually is.

[snip descriptions of frames]

If you really, really want to use frames then I'd advise setting up a
top level frameset that contains your frames (banner, icons, tabs,
content, footer). The icons will all have target="_top" and thus will
load new top level framesets (thus making at least this level
bookmarkable) and allowing new content to be loaded into banner, tabs
and content in one go.
The tabs will all have target="content" and will just load new
content.

>The move to frames on my part is motivated by two factors. First, sections
>of the site are expanding, and making the pages so tabular as to make
>bookmark use a dark comedy.

Sorry, but what does this maen. Frames are what makes it impossible to
bookmark sites. So how does a non-frame site become a 'dark comedy'
for bookmarking?

> Navigation has a potential for complicating out
>of the realm of manageability whenever I add anything at this point.

If the navigation is managed via server side includes it's no more
complex to manage than frames without all the problems for the end
user.

> Tabs
>are becoming more of a standard paradigm all the time, and compact enough on
>the screen to be quite attractive for use.

But there's nothing about tabs that forces the uses of frames, is
there?

>Second, utilizing this structure makes it easier to manage, because less of
>it changes as a result of simply adding a new song or cartoon to the
>selectables involved.

The same structure can be managed without using frames at all. You've
created a hierarchical structure for your site - use that hieracrchy
to define which navigation gets included by SSI, PHP, ASP or whatever.

Every page belongs to a section (the icons) which determines which
banner and tabs are shown, and that's really it - one variable
controls pretty much everything. Anything extra (such as highlighting
the current tab) can easily be added on top.

>Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here. Thanks
>in advance.

Not using frames is _good_ advice. Ignore it if you like, but I'm
still puzzled as to why you posted in the first place. Your message
came across as "This is what I'm going to do and I don't care what
anyone says about it." Did you actually have some question you wanted
to ask?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

"Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

>First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

Frames are bad.
Don't use them.

--
Spartanicus

"Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
>
> >First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners. Should
be
> >enough said, hm?
>
> This is Usenet, you make a post and the people post their responses.
> You have no control over what they post in response. If you don't like
> it, ignore it. If you consistently don't like a poster, kill file
> them.
>
> >Now my question.
>
> In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
> question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
> actually is.

Go back to school then.

In article <AHUcc.270$>,
"Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

> Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.

I'll waste them somewhere else then.

--
Kris
<> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>

"Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
>"Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
>>
>> >Now my question.
>>
>> In the 50 plus lines following this point there isn't a single
>> question mark. So I'm rather confused as to what your question
>> actually is.
>
>Go back to school then.

Please quote whatever your question was. You described the data
structure you were going to use and gave some wishy-washy
justifications for it, but didn't actually ask any questions.

At the moment, based on your attitude all I can assume is that you
don't actually want any help, just to strut about a bit.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

"Kris" <> wrote in message
news:kristiaan-...
> In article <AHUcc.270$>,
> "Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:
>
> > Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.
>
> I'll waste them somewhere else then.

Good idea. I'm interested in more than a narrow path of information.

In article <JZXcc.400$3U.262@newsfe1-win>,
"Revd. Norle Enturbulata" <> wrote:

> > > Again, comments like "forget using frames" need not be wasted here.
> >
> > I'll waste them somewhere else then.
>
> Good idea. I'm interested in more than a narrow path of information.

Great. You keep your eyes wiiide open in that direction there, then I
can killfile you and continue my life, ok?

--
Kris
<> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>

Revd. Norle Enturbulata wrote:

> First off, I'm after information and not anti-frames one-liners.

Frames
suck.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132