• (cs)

    MY HEAD A-SPLODE.

  • (cs)
    Item two, place variable width frames on either side, with your background star image. Then place the work in center as a fixed width frame of the pixels you so desire. So the top frame is three side-by-side frames. Then the middle work frame has other frames. This is called the windowing of frames. That is how you want to now think about all multimedia website design, especially with multiple team authors.
    Wait... is he suggesting here that frames should be used to lay out pages? Like, the way floating divs are used today, or table cells were used before CSS became popular?
  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to TEL
    TEL:
    Just because something is best practice in the industry doesn't mean its best to use in your specific app (and vice versa). Buying a "Best Practices" book doesn't give you permission to stop thinking.

    Amen to that!

  • (cs) in reply to VGR
    VGR:
    JOHN:
    This guy seems a little whackadoo, but he's not wrong about frames.

    I've never understood the irrational hatred people have of frames. When you use them for properly, they're a godsend.

    Wow. Where to start. How about browsers on small screens, like cell phones and PDAs? How about text-mode browsers like lynx? How about accessibility? And, as has already been mentioned, frames royally screw up any hope of bookmarking, and they're not very kind to the Back button. I won't even go into the security issues.

    Are frames occasionally an appropriate idiom? Sure, occasionally. Appropriate for layout? Hell no. Appropriate implementation of persistent side bars or navigation areas? Hell no.

    But, hey, there's a lot of "professionals" who really are still writing CS assignments, and as such believe that anything that "works" is a good job. You decide if you're among them.

    Ok, I'm not a web-guy, but I occasionally get ordered to build a web page with a persistent logo/header area on top, persistent nav-bar on the left, and the remaining area dedicated to whatever the user was doing; if frames are not the right way to do it, what is? (seriously, I'd like to not create WTF's when forced to work out of my element)

  • eff-Five (unregistered)
    ...the solution to this specific technical problem, and every technical problem that you will have in the future with multimedia is framing.

    Really? The solution to every technical problem is framing??? The sheer stupidity and arrogance of that statement alone would send me off the deep end.

    Chris, you will be in my thoughts and prayers until you are able to get out from under that Jackhole.

  • eff-Five (unregistered)
    ...the solution to this specific technical problem, and every technical problem that you will have in the future with multimedia is framing.

    Really? The solution to every technical problem is framing??? The sheer stupidity and arrogance of that statement alone would send me off the deep end.

    Chris, you will be in my thoughts and prayers until you are able to get out from under that Jackhole.

  • 300baud (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom

    Come now, "entire industries" have been and are wrong about many things.

  • 300baud (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    if frames are not the right way to do it, what is?

    Hire a high schooler. Or read anything about CSS.

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to zck
    zck:
    Is it just me, or does Gary remind anyone of the TimeCube guy? They both think they're right, even though everyone's disagrees with them. They don't listen to anything anyone else says; they merely reiterate what they've previously said. Finally, they both use normal English words in ways no one else does (Gary: "people do not know how to frame"; Gene Ray: "Google is ONENESS EVIL").

    Wait! I'm beginning to see it their way!

    Put "Gene Ray" inside a frame! |Gene Ray| Now, wait for one corner day to pass! |Gene Ray| turns into |G ray| which turns into |Gary|!

    I think you've missed that "Gene Ray" is an anagram of "Een Gary" - een is the Dutch word for one.

  • b.w. mcallister (unregistered)
    Gary:
    In this way, you can have your cake and eat it too. In this way, you can sub-page, via frames, a single screen display. In this way you can introduce multimedia without difficulty. In this way, your pages can be social (they can work with other peoples pages). In this way you can secure some pages, with true security, and not others.
    I've been designing web pages for over 5 years, and I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. I know that I want "True Security", I just can't figure out what that is.
  • (cs) in reply to 300baud
    The entire industry is wrong and I am right".

    You are all wrong; the Earth is not the center of the universe!

    You are all wrong; the Earth is not flat; I shall sail around the other way to find a shorter route!

    You are all wrong; I shall build a different kind of computer (Woz).

    You are all wrong; frames are the answer to all tech problems.

    Which doesn't belong?

  • b.w. mcallister (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Ok, I'm not a web-guy, but I occasionally get ordered to build a web page with a persistent logo/header area on top, persistent nav-bar on the left, and the remaining area dedicated to whatever the user was doing; if frames are not the right way to do it, what is? (seriously, I'd like to not create WTF's when forced to work out of my element)
    PHP includes are great for this. 
    <?php include="header.php" ?>
<?php include="sidebar.php" ?>

    Put stuff here
    
<?php include="footer.php" ?>
  • ramen (unregistered)

    are most stories posted here real?? i mean, they're entertaining for sure, but i wonder of these stories are actually true, or just dilbertish made up hahas. how can they be varified?

  • (cs)

    Taken in the original context (from source link) it's fairly obvious that the guy is being sarcastic, in a "you're too dumb to do this yourself I'm going to make you look more of an idiot" kind of way :P.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Ok, I'm not a web-guy, but I occasionally get ordered to build a web page with a persistent logo/header area on top, persistent nav-bar on the left, and the remaining area dedicated to whatever the user was doing; if frames are not the right way to do it, what is? (seriously, I'd like to not create WTF's when forced to work out of my element)
    If you really want it... 
    Logo
    

    Navigation
    

    Main content
    will give you all that framey look&feel you need. (Oh well, except IE 6, of course.)
  • (cs) in reply to b.w. mcallister
    b.w. mcallister:
    snoofle:
    Ok, I'm not a web-guy, but I occasionally get ordered to build a web page with a persistent logo/header area on top, persistent nav-bar on the left, and the remaining area dedicated to whatever the user was doing; if frames are not the right way to do it, what is? (seriously, I'd like to not create WTF's when forced to work out of my element)
    PHP includes are great for this. 
    <?php include="header.php" ?>
<?php include="sidebar.php" ?>

    Put stuff here
    
<?php include="footer.php" ?>

    Funny enough, you didn't answer his question. He wants to know how to have a "persistant nav-bar", in other words, one that does not refresh when you click a link. Your example builds a single page that will refresh in it's entirety, nav-bar included, when link is clicked.

    One answer to an alternative to frames, is to use DIVs and refresh only the DIV content. You can refresh it using AJAX calls so that the rest of the page is not refreshed at the same time. This still has the problem of bookmarks not taking you to the content you want.

  • Greg (unregistered)

    Don't forget George Bernard Shaw's great quote on the subject: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. All progress, therefore, depends upon the unreasonable man."

    That said, I still think Gary is a nut, while Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Wozniak are merely unreasonable men. I mean, really: the whole WTF can be summed up in one sentence: "Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing.". Huh???

  • Steven (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom

    ...and in an alternate universe.

  • (cs)

    I am honestly floored by this. Even before SSIs were introduced, there were common sense reasons not to use frames.

    Come to think of it, I know a... "guy" (I would call him a developer, but he's not, and he couldn't write a good block of code if he was held at gunpoint) that is probably related to Gary. I think both of these two do lots of cocaine.

    How can ANYONE like this even survive in the industry? I honestly don't get it. How can some people be in charge of everything, and be completely stupid? Whatever these people did to get to where they are today, I need to figure it out. I would love to be making 100k/year and blowing smoke up other's asses. It would be the ultimate job -- just think about it.

    Now, in order to prevent my head from exploding, I am going to drink some Scotch and watch Project Runway...

  • (cs) in reply to bz
    bz:
    E.g. The people that only use C++ and refuse to use any high level languages.

    Well... C++ is a highlevel language.

    boomzilla:
    Gary is so wrong. Clearly DesktopSearch is the future (unless we can get line numbers into frames). Why don't you people understand this?

    No, the only solution to all our problems is to get rid of all those H1-Bs who took our jobs. <sarcasm_warning />

  • Not a troll (unregistered) in reply to DeLos

    [quote user="JOHN"] PS: even gmail uses iframes. Is google wrong?[/quote]

    Unpossible. Google is never wrong. Google can do no wrong. Google makes great sandwiches. Google made me a better man.[/quote]

    Ummm...can The Google make a better woman for me please?

  • Gabe da Silveira (unregistered)

    Usually I'm pretty gullible about these sorts of things, but in this case I can't see how this is real. It's just too tongue-in-cheek.

  • Vincent (unregistered)

    Terrible. I almost got a fit just from reading this.

  • Ren (unregistered)

    Oh dear lord...

    "This happens a lot to me."

    I literally cringed at this point. Sadly, we all probably know people like this. MUD wizards are good examples.

  • Says You! (unregistered) in reply to vman

    Gary needs to be slapped with a large fish...a tuna maybe, or a flounder.

    I believe that the word you're looking for is: cornhobble.

  • Gaspy (unregistered)

    Well, he does kinda sorta have a point. I haven't used frames in ages (actually since 1997), but they are not "evil" or anything. Many ads use them - making them easier to block, too. Heck, even Google uses hidden iframes generated dynamically with javascript for gMail and other AJAX apps, where they want to retain the browser back/forward functionality.

    Browsers no longer have problems bookmarking frames and can also print frames; I am not very sure about screen readers, but I think they can handle frames too. Search engines have big issues with frames; they'll index pages out of context (some have made javascripts to reload that page in the correct frame context) and generally it's a SEO nightmare.

    Having said that, the guy is nuts. Frames are not the magic bullet, more like something you can use when everything else fails (or you're too lazy to find an alternative).

  • Salty (unregistered)
    There is a lot of misinformation in the information industry.
    So THAT's what MIS stands for: Mis-Information Systems. Now it makes sense.
    In short, the entire industry is wrong on the framing issue ... You tell me there are two frame problems: handicap access and book marking. Even if true (I'd need to research) ...
    Yes, Gary doesn't know what the entire industry says is wrong with frames (Gary hasn't actually researched this), Gary just knows that Gary is right about frames being the perfect solution to most web design problems. Gary needs to increase the dosage on his meds.
  • Salty (unregistered) in reply to Zazi
    Zazi:
    ... I honestly don't get it. How can some people be in charge of everything, and be completely stupid?
    We Americans looks at our Congress, our Senate, seven of our last nine Presidents, and we wonder the same thing.
  • Salty (unregistered) in reply to bz
    bz:
    Though the article highlights the craziness, I still find it annoying when people toss out technology simply because it has been deemed inferior or "not cool". ... E.g. The people that only use C++ and refuse to use any high level languages. Or the people that refuse to use anything BUT CSS, resulting in somewhat rigid and complicated CSS pages to do the work of a simple table.
    Gary? Is that you?
  • (cs) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:
    This guy seems a little whackadoo, but he's not wrong about frames.

    We use iframes here at work to achieve some very advanced features that would otherwise not be possible using plain HTML. We've cut our page sizes down by 30%, performance is up, etc.

    I've never understood the irrational hatred people have of frames. When you use them for properly, they're a godsend.

    PS: even gmail uses iframes. Is google wrong?

    iframes are not the same as frames. It's an entirely different kind of flying. Altogether.

  • (cs) in reply to b.w. mcallister
    b.w. mcallister:
    Gary:
    In this way, you can have your cake and eat it too. In this way, you can sub-page, via frames, a single screen display. In this way you can introduce multimedia without difficulty. In this way, your pages can be social (they can work with other peoples pages). In this way you can secure some pages, with true security, and not others.
    I've been designing web pages for over 5 years, and I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. I know that I want "True Security", I just can't figure out what that is.

    My guess would be that his "true security" refers to the fact that when you're viewing a page composed of frames, and you click "View Source", you will be shown the source of the document containing the frameset, but not the documents containing the content of the frames. It's the same general class of "security" as that provided by those scripts that try to keep you from saving images by trapping right-clicks on a web page.

    Given Gary's other remarks, I can definitely believe that he is insane enough to think that this will prevent people from discovering the code behind the individual frames.

  • Gene Ray (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom

    It's not your fault. You were educated stupid and evil.

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    Gotta love how he refers to himself in the third person and uses profundities like "Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing". He could make more money if he got out of web design and started a cult in Guyana.

    Well, that quote makes some sense in Guyana. They, have many poisonous web-footed frogs with whom we'd need secure multi-mediation.

  • (cs)

    Rock on, Alex! Great pick!

    "Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing."

    This has been my Slashdot sig for the past 9 months. Classic!

  • mrfox (unregistered)

    Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing

    I just love it! I have to pull that one in my next meeting. if I manage to mention factory and XML in the same sentence I bet I'll immediately be promoted.

  • Theo (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    snoofle:
    Ok, I'm not a web-guy, but I occasionally get ordered to build a web page with a persistent logo/header area on top, persistent nav-bar on the left, and the remaining area dedicated to whatever the user was doing; if frames are not the right way to do it, what is? (seriously, I'd like to not create WTF's when forced to work out of my element)
    If you really want it... 
    Logo
    

    Navigation
    

    Main content
    will give you all that framey look&feel you need. (Oh well, except IE 6, of course.)

    This approach is not good enough for the nav and logo to be persistent. But I'll tell you what: you DON'T want them to be persistent. If your customer does want that, you need to have him understand that putting your logo and nav bar on a page with some other site's content in the main area is BAD.

    If the original poster meant persistent in his site only, then he can use a generic layout page which has the divs mentioned above (with position:absolute) for each bit of content (nav, logo and main). And these bits themselves would be PHP includes (or whatever technology he's using, bits of JSP, Velocity or Freemarker templates, whatever).

    Then each link within the site would redirect to that same layout page, with a parameter indicating what to put in the "main" position. You can even have some alternate nav bars for different subsites if you want.

    This way, you ensure everything works fine. Even bookmarking. And when you follow a link OUTSIDE your site, your page becomes what it needs to be: without the nav/logo.

    Doh, I really did a technical post without any pun. Something I had sworn I would never do on WTF. Anyway.

  • James (unregistered)

    Genius! I'm going to start randomly working "Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing" into all technical discussions at work.

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to Greg
    Greg:
    Don't forget George Bernard Shaw's great quote on the subject: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. All progress, therefore, depends upon the unreasonable man."

    That said, I still think Gary is a nut, while Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Wozniak are merely unreasonable men. I mean, really: the whole WTF can be summed up in one sentence: "Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing.". Huh???

    Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Wozniak each understood & built something. Then, they persisted in trying to adapt the world to their creations, not themselves.

    This guy, Gary, did absolutely nothing; he didn't create or understand HTML frames. He just wants Chris to adapt to his stupidity.

  • Amidan (unregistered) in reply to Todd

    Aristotle was also wrong about the number of teeth people had since he based his answer on the number of teeth a horse has and never bothered to check.

  • (cs) in reply to CRNewsom
    CRNewsom:
    I am pretty sure that whenever you make the statement "I am right and the entire industry is wrong." you are, in fact, the one who is wrong. Unless your name happens to be Steve Wozniak, and it happens to be 1976.

    My name IS Steve Wozniak, and it HAPPENS to be 1976! Now then...where are my pants....<runs off cackling wildly>

  • (cs) in reply to TroelsL
    TroelsL:
    I wouldn't believe anyone could be both this stupid and this arrogant if I hadn't already met people worse than this.

    I love his argument that when using frame, you can just get a 404 in one of the frames, instead of the entire page. Which, of course is a typical occurrence on a well run and secure server. Everyone knows that pages disappear every once in a while. By his argument, it would be even better to have 10 vertical frames on all sites, so you "distribute" the possibility of error. Just split your .jpgs into 10 parts and show one in each frame. That way, if one or two of the files are sucked out of existence by the sheer stupidity of your boss, the user can still see 8/10 of the image.

    How can you not see that this is brilliant?!

    I see that it's brilliant. Well, eight-tenths brilliant.

  • (cs)

    I frame...therefore I am.

  • dsevil (unregistered)

    4 corner simultaneous four-frame web pages prove one-page-one-frame is taught evil.

  • HAHAHHAHAHAAH (unregistered) in reply to jaspax

    Poop face!

  • nobody (unregistered)

    seriously now...WTF?! somebody gave that guy a job? and still allows him to keep it? maybe occasionally congratulates him as well for his "accomplishments" and "lucidity"?

  • mike (unregistered)

    So is this from a script from an upcoming episode of The Office? You might as well have named "Gary" "Michael Scott".

  • foo (unregistered)

    Actually he's kind of right (sadly) but he's also horribly wrong. He feels about "frames" the way many people feel about Ajax. The bit he's got right is that separate HTTP requests mixed together into a single presentation represent a more flexible and adaptable website... this allows for mash-ups. The part he's got wrong is that this does not mean frames.

    Frames not good. Frames bad. Frames are not core to the internet... frames are presentation layer. He thinks frames are requests... requests can be made asynchronously. You would be better off to quit than try and explain this. Talk about the new "hidden frame" technology in the mini-browsers you use in XMLHTTP.

  • Wes (unregistered) in reply to WhiskeyJack

    I hear the voice of "Todd" from Code Monkeys.

  • WmK (unregistered)

    Gary always drives home on the other side of the road. Loudly proclaiming that everyone else is drive on the wrong side.

  • v.dog (unregistered) in reply to Jeremy

    I can't believe no-one else picked up on this; using MS Word to design pages is a far greater WTF than insisting on using frames.

    I used to do support for a comic hosting site, and the three main issues were:

    1. creating pages in Word
    2. uploading them via IE
    3. making a bitmap a gif by changing the extension.

    Frames were hardly ever a problem, certainly nothing target="_blank" or if(window.location.href != top.location.href){top.location.href = window.location.href;} couldn't fix.

Leave a comment on “I am right and the entire Industry is wrong”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article