«

Hans wrote:
> Thanks for you answer (this newsgroup is amazing, 10 minutes to get
the
> first answer!!).

That's because we have no lives...

> I'm more of a programmer using Visual Studio and not a html guru but
I have
> now developed a web interface and I have read a lot on this newsgroup
about
> how evil frames are and that they are useless. In this case however I
was
> not able to find a better solution (which could be lack of skills
when it
> comes to "internet development" therefore my question).

Solutions-a-plenty here.

> Merry Christmas to you all
Hey we wil have none ofthat good cheer in this group!

--
-=Tn=-

Travis Newbury wrote:

>
> rf wrote:
> > All up it seems to me like a *good* example of where frames are
> useful.
>
> Heart stopping....
>
> clutching chest....

WTF are you talking about?

The OP's application just may be a perfect opportunity to use frames. Just
like his other application may be a perfect opportunity to use excel, or
visual basic, or mysql.

It's not, after all, visible to you so why should you bloody care?

--
Cheers
Richard.

rf wrote:
[Frames on an intranet]
> It's not, after all, visible to you so why should you bloody care?

For what it's worth, I agree with you entirely, Richard.

I would like to add though, that the OP should however check that he
isn't violating any laws by making an Intranet application that is
potentially inaccessible to some employees.

--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references

While the city slept, rf (rf@.invalid) feverishly typed...

> Hans wrote:
>> P.s rf I really appreciate your help and I see that you are
>> answering a lot of questions in this newsgroup.
>
> We fight over the opportunities.
>
>> Do you do this on your spare time or do you
>> get paid by anyone to do this?
>
> ROFL...

What? You mean you don't get paid for this rf? Everbody else does! I'd have
a word with your agent!

Cheers,
Nige

--
Nigel Moss
http://www.nigenet.org.uk
Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!

nice.guy.nige wrote:
> While the city slept, rf (rf@.invalid) feverishly typed...
> > Hans wrote:

> >> Do you do this on your spare time or do you
> >> get paid by anyone to do this?
> >
> > ROFL...
>
> What? You mean you don't get paid for this rf? Everbody else does! I'd
have
> a word with your agent!

brucie...

Brucie?

BRUCIE!

Damn. Just when you need the bloody bloke he's on sabbatical

--
Cheers
Richard.

Dylan Parry wrote:
> rf wrote:
> [Frames on an intranet]

> I would like to add though, that the OP should however check that he
> isn't violating any laws by making an Intranet application that is
> potentially inaccessible to some employees.

Hmmm. Then the OP must make sure that this does not occur. I know I do so
with my "html applications". They behave just like any other windows
application, like windows help, for example, which *is* an HTML application,
well sort of

--
Cheers
Richard.

Hans wrote:


> If I remove the frames I would have to run the pretty heavy code for
> building up the non-static treeview for every page (which includes
> instantiating COM+ component and database access etc) and this will be
> much slower than it is today (at least when I tested). The users want to
> see the treeview all the time because they are familiar with that in the
> windows client (otherwise a link to a page that shows the treeview could
> be an alternative).

Here they use frames and asp at the same time as far as I can see it.
But they build up the treeview with every click on a menu item aswell.
So the question is not so much frames or not frames. It depends on what you
like:

http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp

> Is this just an unusual case where frames are the best choice or what
> alternatives do I have? I prompted for removing the treeview (and also a
> calendar frame) which are used rarely and add links that would open the
> page with the treeview/calendar but they insisted that they should be
> visible all the time.

I think the guys who propagate php stop a little bit to soon proudly showing
their efforts.


>
> Regards
> /Hans


--
Jan

http://linux.janfaerber.com

rf wrote:

> Dylan Parry wrote:
>> rf wrote:
>> [Frames on an intranet]
>
>> I would like to add though, that the OP should however check that he
>> isn't violating any laws by making an Intranet application that is
>> potentially inaccessible to some employees.
>
> Hmmm. Then the OP must make sure that this does not occur. I know I do so
> with my "html applications". They behave just like any other windows
> application, like windows help, for example, which *is* an HTML
> application, well sort of
>

Why does this violate any laws?



--
Jan

http://linux.janfaerber.com

Jan Faerber wrote:

> Why does this violate any laws?

To quote a couple of random passages from something I am working on at
the moment:

_Americans with Disabilities Act_
"Deval Patrick (US Assistant Attorney General in 2001) states that the
ADA does apply to all Websites, as long as the public entity that
created the site employs 15 or more employees"

_Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act_
"Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which was most recently amended
in 1998, states that Federal agencies are prohibited from ``procuring,
developing, maintaining or using EIT (Electronic and Information
Technology) that is inaccessible to people with disabilities."

_Canadian Charter of Human Rights_
"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination
and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or
ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, or \textbf{mental or physical
disability}.

This legislation applies to all situations encountered in all walks of
life, and in particular it covers goods and services provided to the
public. Whether or not this can be extended to online goods and services
is not, however, a matter of debate as it has already been shown that
the law applies to other forms of media --- specifically television."

_UK Disability Discrimination Act_
"Part three of the DDA refers to the ``provision of access to goods,
facilities and services, including the general prohibition on unlawful
discrimination''\citep{cooper1996}, and as such any online service, such
as the example given above, should be deemed as a service covered by
Part three of this act. Section 19(3) of the Act does list the
generalised examples ``access to and use of information services, access
to and use of means of communication, and facilities for entertainment''
as cases where the Act is deemed to apply. It can be seen that all three
of these cases can equally be applied to Websites, and as such the DDA
would appear to apply here."

_Australian Disability Discrimination Act_
"On a Federal level, Australian disability legislation consists of the
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which was introduced in 1993,
several years before its UK counterpart. Just like the UK DDA, the
Australian version was created long before the advent of the World Wide
Web, and so does not mention Website accessibility as a specific case
where it applies. It can be seen, however, that this legislation covers
almost exactly the same areas as the UK DDA, and so should apply in
cases of Website accessibility."

I have more examples of legislation that applies to Websites (by which I
mean Internet and Intranet) from various other countries, including
Germany, Ireland and New Zealand, but I don't want to make this post any
longer!

The important thing to note here, especially with the ADA legislation,
is that they all apply to both members of the public accessing a site
*and* employees of the company who need to use it too.

--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references

In message <>, SpaceGirl
<> writes
>jake wrote:
>> In message <Xns95C5F19E8301usenetwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4>, Duende
>><> writes
>>
>>> While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:
>>>
>>>> Hans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In an in-house ASP site (designed to support IE5.5+ and NN7+) we
>>>>>are using
>>>>> frames today and I know there are several issues by using frames but I
>>>>> cannot see a better alternative.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is inhouse. It works. Your viewers are happy with it. The
>>>>alternatives
>>>> would not work nearly as fast. Why do you want to change it?
>>>>
>>>> All up it seems to me like a *good* example of where frames are useful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <grin> Gota love those frames. </grin>
>>>
>> Frames are your friends
>>
>
>Best invention ever, after CSS-less 100% table fixed-width layouts.
>
A design concept guaranteed to work in all known browsers since before
Netscape 2

--
Jake