Re: Projects

[Micah Yoder <LYoder@cyberis.net>]

> But not searchable via ht://dig.  We *need* fuzzy logic if we want to
> attract newbies who don't know how to spell things.

Right, and a database-only solution doesn't really search text very
well.

> > [FRAMES]
> >
> > > Obviously this is a very subjective preference.  We also have to consider
> > > the advantages of frames and non-frames technically:
> > >
> > > 1) Frames allow you to "keep" a top level menu for easy site navigation
> >
> > You could do the same by using template files which include the navigation
> > bar.
> >
> > > 2) Frames don't force you to re-load common parts of pages (like menus)
> > > over and over again, which is good for slow connections.
> >
> > Agreed - but this depends heavily on the size of the menu items and
> > images. These items would be cached by the browser anyway.
> >
> > > 2) Frames are poorly supported in Lynx
> >
> > Indeed :)
> >
> > > 3) Frames allow you to open a page on another site, but keep the user on
> > > your site.  This allows people to avoid the "back" button and prevents
> > > problems with HTTP redirects which prevent people using the back button.
> >
> > True. An alternative would be opening a new browser window for each
> > external link. I admit, this is a point, where frames could actually be
> > useful.
> >
> > > 4) Many people don't like frames (I think this is becuase so many sites
> > > did them in a confusing manner).
> >
> > See Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox for December 1996: "Why Frames Suck (Most of
> > the Time)" on http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html for more info. I
> > really recommend this site when in comes to usability issues.
> >
> > > 5) For the Red Hat Linux User's FAQ, people chose the frames version over
> > > the non-frames by 4:1.  (Probably because the non-frames version sucks in
> > > graphic browsers.)  People also prefered the JavaScript pages over the
> > > non-JavaScript pages by the same margin (I guess people like mouse-overs
> > > :-)
> > > What I'm trying to point out is that there are good and bad reasons to do
> > > frames.  Let's just choose the best format for *our* site-- who cares what
> > > everyone else does.
> >
> > Should we vote about this subject?
> 
> Sounds good- but everyone should read that article on frames first.

Add another one for no frames:

* Framed sites put the keyboard "focus" on one frame.  Like, on RedHat's
site, I usually have to click inside the main frame after I select
something and then want to scroll.  Just another added annoyance.

This, combined with the arguments in the "frames suck" page, give a
pretty conclusive argument.  I'll join Lenz and vote NO!

But, if you want to implement a separate framed-page, like I said, go
for it!