__/ [wallster] on Saturday 03 September 2005 22:25 \__
> David Dorward wrote:
>> wallster wrote:
>> >> http://www.danielsorogon.com
>> > I know alot of people frown upon frames but i think that site looks
>> > great!
>> Daniel Sorogon - Online Information and Projects
>> If your browser does not support Flash, click here
>> Click? With what?
The text "If your browser does not support Flash, click here" appears below
the Flash object, so when Flash is not supported, the introduction page can
>> If I follow the link then it takes me to a content less page (since the
>> <noframes> is empty).
>> It is possible to implement frames without introducing major problems for
>> at least some of your audience, but most of the time authors don't, and
>> the amount of work means that its usually better to take a different
>> approach in the first place.
Please get a feel for the entire /context/ of the message. I listed the site
above as a /bad/ example.
> I agree that it's just not universal enough for all users. I wouldn't
> use them because of that reason but if I were a website designer and
> that's what my customer insisted on, well that could be another story i
> guess. The same applies with flash. At least with just a flash intro
> page that has a skip intro prompt, you dont have to wait a year with
> your dial up connection to load the page. I personally like the way
> some of these look (as a web surfer) but again, it should be good for
> as many visitors as possible.
Remember that your Web pages is served to robots as well as visitors, which
in turn can attract plenty of visitors. Half of my entire traffic is
consumed by search engines. In the first place, many visitors found about
about my Web sites owing to search engines. The site listed above really
deters any single search engine.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
5:50am up 10 days 18:01, 6 users, load average: 0.81, 0.52, 0.49