"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:debngi$29kg$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Improvement? Keep it?

Yes, Yes.

Some reasons why:

  http://www.search-marketing.info/traps/frames.htm
  http://karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=2
  http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
  http://www.htmlite.com/SD002.php
  http://www.discountdomainsuk.com/articles_archived/9/688/1

http://azenomei.knuffel.net/~rhialto/banned_from_www.polderland.nl/frames-ar
e-bad.html
  http://www.netlawblog.com/archives/000167.html
  http://www.iso.port.ac.uk/~mike/whynoframes.html
  http://www.weballey.net/frames/badthings.html
  http://www.ecr.mu.oz.au/help/web/tips.html

  etc...

Umm...

<td valign="top" bgcolor="eeeeee" nowrap>

I guess you were going to say "#eeeeee"?

And about frames:
Frames were designed to minimize traffic. They really makes sense when you
have complex index part and dynamic content part.
Just to minimize entropy and air pollution for such cases.

Andrew.

"Carlos Smith" <c_____.s____@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:ded8jg$lvk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Some reasons why:
>
>   http://www.search-marketing.info/traps/frames.htm
>   http://karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=2
>   http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>   http://www.htmlite.com/SD002.php
>   http://www.discountdomainsuk.com/articles_archived/9/688/1
>
>
http://azenomei.knuffel.net/~rhialto/banned_from_www.polderland.nl/frames-ar
> e-bad.html
>   http://www.netlawblog.com/archives/000167.html
>   http://www.iso.port.ac.uk/~mike/whynoframes.html
>   http://www.weballey.net/frames/badthings.html
>   http://www.ecr.mu.oz.au/help/web/tips.html
>
>   etc...

I think the point is made <g>.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:36:59 -0700, Walter <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> "Carlos Smith" <c_____.s____@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ded8jg$lvk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Some reasons why:
>>
>>   http://www.search-marketing.info/traps/frames.htm
>>   http://karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=2
>>   http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>>   http://www.htmlite.com/SD002.php
>>   http://www.discountdomainsuk.com/articles_archived/9/688/1
>>
>>
> http://azenomei.knuffel.net/~rhialto/banned_from_www.polderland.nl/frames-ar
>> e-bad.html
>>   http://www.netlawblog.com/archives/000167.html
>>   http://www.iso.port.ac.uk/~mike/whynoframes.html
>>   http://www.weballey.net/frames/badthings.html
>>   http://www.ecr.mu.oz.au/help/web/tips.html
>>
>>   etc...
>
> I think the point is made <g>.

Yes.. except.. the original problem that 'frames' solve, if badly, remains. It is mentioned in the 2nd link, I quote...

"Introduced by Netscape in 1996, frames were introduced as a (seemingly) creative solution to a common concern. When a user scrolls a page to view more content, the navigational items are taken out of view as well. The solution? Separate the content from the navigation so that the navigation is always visible and usable for the visitor."

So, while I agree: "frames are not the solution" where does that leave you? Do you simply ensure your users never need to scroll your pages? do you add a floating menu? (hell no, IMO) what is the solution?

Regan

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:ded7rb$lc4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> No surprise there, I am a beginner html coder <g>.

Yeah, I really shouldn't be one to talk either ;)  But if you're going to make a good impression for D, I'd really recommend getting a better design for the site.

> The problem with frames is that no other web sites use them for
> navigation,
> and too many people think it makes the website look clumsy and
> old-fashioned. One blind user wrote me that frames made it very difficult
> for him to navigate.
>
> The last problem with frames is if you wind up at the page directly from, say, a search engine, one loses all the navigation.

I've always liked frames; they're great for separating the index from the page content.  Though the problems you've mentioned are all very real ones.

> Are the navigation problems you're experiencing with it something that is fixable without using frames?

I'm not sure.  My biggest beef with it is when you go to a long page, and scroll to the bottom, but if you want to get to another page, you have to scroll all the way back up to the top.  That, and the contents don't really stand out; they've got the same boring white background and are separated from the content by a thin black line.

Also - I noticed you put the _moduleDtor() call in the D for Win32 section, but the DLLs section is missing the _moduleDtor() in the DllMain() example. :)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:30:56 +1200, Regan Heath wrote:


[snip]

> Yes.. except.. the original problem that 'frames' solve, if badly, remains.

[snip]

> So, while I agree: "frames are not the solution" where does that leave you? Do you simply ensure your users never need to scroll your pages? do you add a floating menu? (hell no, IMO) what is the solution?

How about having smaller pages. Just limit a page to some context info at the top and one topic/aspect in the main body with the frame-less navigation info at the side. In other words, if scrolling is an issue, lessen the need to scroll.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
23/08/2005 7:52:14 AM

"Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:ded95j$mfh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Umm...
>
> <td valign="top" bgcolor="eeeeee" nowrap>
>
> I guess you were going to say "#eeeeee"?

eeeeeek!

> And about frames:
> Frames were designed to minimize traffic. They really makes sense when you
> have complex index part and dynamic content part.
> Just to minimize entropy and air pollution for such cases.

I know. But they're dead.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:ded4n0$idd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Dejan Lekic" <leka@entropy.tmok.com> wrote in message news:dec3e1$2kbk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> Mr. Bright,
>> IMHO You should redesign DM website according to design provided by
>> Trevor
>> Parscal (he submitted it few months ago). - It was really superior design
> I
>> think. He also said he would volunteer to help You with it, but looks
>> like
>> nothing happened. I know Mr. Parscall and all I can say is that he's very
>> skillfull guy (artist, musician, developer...).
>> I think no-frames version would be nice for search engines - so the best
>> would be to have both of them, and let visitor chose which one (s)he
>> would
>> use.
>
> Trevor's web site design is really nice. The problem is, well, it's a lot
> of
> work to redo the web site.

Work that presumably you don't have to do all yourself. I guess it depends
on who would end up owning things like copyrights and if anyone would
volunteer to make a website and give the copyright over to digitalmars (or
to whomever or whatever would end up owning the copyrights).
Maybe someone should pump some life back into www.opend.org. That web page
is copyrighted by "The OpenD Team" - not that I know who that is. There's
plenty of people in the community who I bet could make some pretty spiffy
content.

Hi,

Walter wrote:
> Improvement? Keep it?
> 
> www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html

As I mentioned before with the phobos docs, the frameless navigation is a huge improvement. Great job! The site feels more modern now, and is much more usable. This is particularly true for search engines and bookmarks.

I have an idea for searching which is quite simple and doesn't involve any heavy lifting. See, the problem right now is that searching, which is done through Google, lumps together docs and messages.

With that setup, it's very hard to find the official information. Hence my suggestion: What about moving either the docs or the newsgroup to another root at the domain level?

For instance:

www.digitalmars.com/d/docs/...
and
www.digitalmars.com/d/newsgroup/...
and
www.digitalmars.com/d/archive/...

That way, when searching with google, you can use

KEYWORDS ... site:digitalmars.com

to locate pages within:

1) Just the docs (/d/docs/).
2) Just the messages (/d/archive/).
3) Everything related to D (/d/).
4) All of DigitalMars (/).

Moreover, this could be extended to work with sub-categories. For example, you could separate the spec proper:

www.digitalmars.com/d/docs/spec/... (arrays, functions, etc...)
from phobos:
www.digitalmars.com/d/docs/phobos/std/...
www.digitalmars.com/d/docs/phobos/etc/...

Which would allow even further specificity when searching. The best part of this is that it is all done through google. No need to implement anything server-side, and no need to index pages.

Just move the pages to the correct location. In fact, a custom search page could be used that prettifies the whole ordeal for non-googlers.

I could put together this page if people support the idea.

What do you think?

Cheers,
--AJG.

In article <opsvxe9ue123k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...
>
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:36:59 -0700, Walter <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> "Carlos Smith" <c_____.s____@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:ded8jg$lvk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> Some reasons why:
>>>
>>>   http://www.search-marketing.info/traps/frames.htm
>>>   http://karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=2
>>>   http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>>>   http://www.htmlite.com/SD002.php
>>>   http://www.discountdomainsuk.com/articles_archived/9/688/1
>>>
>>>
>> http://azenomei.knuffel.net/~rhialto/banned_from_www.polderland.nl/frames-ar
>>> e-bad.html
>>>   http://www.netlawblog.com/archives/000167.html
>>>   http://www.iso.port.ac.uk/~mike/whynoframes.html
>>>   http://www.weballey.net/frames/badthings.html
>>>   http://www.ecr.mu.oz.au/help/web/tips.html
>>>
>>>   etc...
>>
>> I think the point is made <g>.
>
>Yes.. except.. the original problem that 'frames' solve, if badly, remains. It is mentioned in the 2nd link, I quote...
>
>"Introduced by Netscape in 1996, frames were introduced as a (seemingly) creative solution to a common concern. When a user scrolls a page to view more content, the navigational items are taken out of view as well. The solution? Separate the content from the navigation so that the navigation is always visible and usable for the visitor."

>
>So, while I agree: "frames are not the solution" where does that leave you? Do you simply ensure your users never need to scroll your pages? do you add a floating menu? (hell no, IMO) what is the solution?
>
>Regan

The solution is to redesign this bobawful pile of crap we call the web.  HTML and HTTP have ruined the world and have stunted progress.  No, I won't tell you what I *really* think ;)

Regards,
James Dunne