• JJacobsson (unregistered) in reply to AdT

    That was the funniest thing I have read all week.

  • richard willis (unregistered) in reply to Todd

    but would i not be right in saying that much of what we now [theoretically] know to be "right" about physics stems from some pioneering if incorrect work dun by ari? and, if so, might i be bold enough to posit that this is in fact, gary's real genius, that not the issue of framing is where his insight lays but in some as-yet-unknown <post-frames> world where gary's insights on said subject will impact the next gen. of 2d windows and be reprinted by neo-reilly (did you see what i did there?) in a book called 'On Frames' and included in a budget classics collection of which any punter could pick up a well-thumbed tome for a dollar fifty?

    i can only assume not as:

    a. i am not gary; but rather b. i am part of the industry

    and therefore can only be: wrong.

    shame, cos that must invalidate my predictions... and make gary a LOSER! :)

  • (cs) in reply to bz

    Frames were great back in the dial-up days, less data transfer. Frames screw up bookmarking, page back and forward controls and accessibility.

    I agree with you people jump on the "tech bandwagon" way too quickly, and do very silly things. Like trying to use CSS and DIVs to replace HTML tables for tabular data...ewwww...

  • Adrian Bool (unregistered)

    There is something very serene and comforting in Gary's words... I could read them all day!

  • Dileepan (unregistered) in reply to jaspax

    Me too.

  • Ørjan L. (unregistered) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    Gmail might not use frames but there image search sure does.

    their

    But yes - it does - and your point being?

    Google Image Search uses a frame to represent the miniature version (or, if you will, the thumbnail) of the picture on the top of the page, whenever you have clicked on one of the pictures in the actual search (which doesn't use frames at all).

    Google, however, has done this the right way, and this is a good example on how to use frames properly - you can remove the frame by clicking a link, and the page then goes to the original, you can bookmark the page, and you will get the exact same result as before, when loading it - as for accessibility, I have not tested, but I assume there might be some issues with, eg. screen readers - although I'm not sure how often screen readers are used for searching for images... it sort of takes away the purpose of screen readers, if you're actually able to see the picture.

    I think Googles approach to this is one of the better ways of doing this particular search and display - as it keeps the top frame unchanged (unless you chose to do something to change it, as close it altogether, or just display the image full-size) and still lets you see the webpage where the picture you've found originated.

    Frames != evil - most uses of frames == evil.

  • Tei (unregistered) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    Like communism, it was great in theory but in use it performed poorly.

    Comunism, Cristianism, etc.. all religions, are abstract class. Can't be instanced. The tecnical word is "utopia"

  • (cs)

    I am absolutely confused with what this Gary is trying to articulate in his explanation on why he thinks he is right.

    What exactly is his stand?

  • NeoMojo (unregistered) in reply to Zylon

    Taking in what Gary says or writes is almost like talking to someone who bothers God.

  • Bosshog (unregistered) in reply to The Undroid
    The Undroid:
    Is he by any chance from Framingham? But I'd agree that his grasp of HTML is on a par with Aristotle's.
    He's almost certainly from Buckingham.
  • Bosshog (unregistered) in reply to Greg D
    Greg D:
    Always be wary of people who refer to themselves in the third person.

    Maybe Gary is a friend of Biltmore!

    B: "Biltmore want reports! Biltmore soooo angry!" G: "Gary here to help Biltmore! Biltmore need frames for his reports."

    etc..

  • (cs) 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".

    Though there were probably many reasons not to use frames in this case, I really don't like when ideas are cast aside without being examined in detail first.

    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.

    A screwdriver is not a hammer, although it can be used as such.

    So true. There is a place for frames, and a place for simple HTML tables over CSS. The mac vs. pc, or windows vs linux arguments are no different. There is a place for each. Each have their pros and cons.

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered)

    Heh. The professors out there understand nothing.

    But Gary is right. The same attitude made Monty Widenius a rich guy.

  • xlq (unregistered) in reply to bz

    Since when was C++ low-level?!

  • Tim (unregistered) in reply to Jeremy
    Jeremy:
    Ok, I would have stopped listening as soon as he said "open MS Word".

    Seriously, who ever used this. Oh I would have to say, non professional "Web Designers". To allow a program write html for you when it is a simple language to use. To use correctly you must actually understand for what you are using it for.

    Yes IFrames do not equal Frames, and never will.

    I think it is hilarious that a programmer (supposably) uses something other than notepad or a suite that writes pure txt files.

    Now I don't know everything about the web, but I'm pretty sure if you are stuck on frames, you have been passed by, and never will be able to catch up.

    Good luck to all of you frames people, because you are living in a box, whereas OOP programmers live to build boxes, not live in them ;P

  • Tim (unregistered) in reply to xlq
    xlq:
    Since when was C++ low-level?!

    Yeah that post made me chuckle too, What are you using if you think c++ is a low level programming language?

    Nevermind, I really don't want to know

  • someguy (unregistered)

    Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing.

    Love this one, somebody should put it on a t-shirt.

  • Luke (unregistered)

    Obviously Gary is right. His multimedia multi content framing paradigm is the only reasonable solution in the Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Time Cube system.

    I'm sorry but you have all been taught a lie.

  • Salty (unregistered) in reply to Phleabo
    Phleabo:
    Salty:
    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.

    Which presidents are the idiots? Bush 2 is the one gimmie candidate.

    The two that weren't idiots were Reagan and JFK.

    Also, the Senate is part of the Congress.
    Bloody pedant.
  • Gho5t (unregistered)

    "You tell me there are two frame problems: handicap access and book marking. Even if true (I'd need to research), these are not the key issues."

    I guess the true path to enlightenment is to not read the 101 course books on your subject and skip right to making adamant assumptions.

  • bob (unregistered) in reply to Been There
    Been There:

    The real sad part of this, is once this guy learns about the whole "web 2.0/ajax" thing he'll undoubtedly think every asynchronous ajax component is basically a Frame as "he'd have done it" if he wrote the HTML specs....then claim vindication and perhaps industrial espionage.

    Everyone knows the truly elite only use synchronous ajax components

  • Just Passing Through (unregistered)
    ...if your server is down, and you have a full page, then that full page is not sent and you get the 404 error message.
    Who's going to break it to Gary that when a server is down, nothing on that server's going to be sent, regardless of how many frames the content is in?

    And:

    ...can you make them drop-up menus?
    Drop-up menus? WTF?
  • (cs) in reply to Bosshog
    Bosshog:
    Greg D:
    Always be wary of people who refer to themselves in the third person.

    Maybe Gary is a friend of Biltmore!

    B: "Biltmore want reports! Biltmore soooo angry!" G: "Gary here to help Biltmore! Biltmore need frames for his reports."

    etc..

    Ah. Biltmore. A new meme for these cold, dark times..

  • Bob Holness (unregistered) in reply to jaspax

    But that makes you wrong too, thus creating a paradox.

    Captcha: Savage banana kills three pumkins

  • Zygo (unregistered) in reply to SomeCoder
    SomeCoder:
    I'm just curious as to who in the industry (besides the RIAA which is NOT in the industry) likes DRM,

    Apple, Intel, and Microsoft like DRM, and I think it's difficult to argue they're outside of the industry. They see it as a tool to allow them to collect a tax on everything with a copyright. The best part (for them) is that they don't have to care whether the content creators live or die, as long as they can get a (near-) monopoly on the players.

  • Zygo (unregistered)

    This is one of the few articles on this site that literally makes me mutter "WTF" at intervals of a few seconds while reading it.

    One thing that comes to mind is that this text looks a lot like the output of a Markovian text generator. Taken as sequences of two or three words it seems fairly plausible, but the sentences or paragraphs make no sense.

    Perhaps Gary is a genius after all...writing Eliza programs?

  • pabraham (unregistered) in reply to WmK
    WmK:
    Gary always drives home on the other side of the road. Loudly proclaiming that everyone else is drive on the wrong side.

    We all know that anyone who drives on the right side of the road drives on the wrong side of the road.

  • Tor (unregistered)

    Wow, I am convinced. After all, who wouldnt want friendly frames, happily working with other frames. What a nice picture Gary painted for me.

    Also, for someone who compares himself to Aristotle, and who had near flawless punctuation, grammer, and spelling... spelled his own name "gary" (lowercase g). This is obviously not ego driven.

  • JOHN (unregistered) 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.

    Lynx - welcome to the 20th century

    PDA's - Our application is an enterprise workflow application and is not appropriate for PDAs or other small-screened devices.

    Accessibility - Again, enterprise workflow app, there's simply no way a blind person could use it in the first place.

    Bookmarking - Due to security concerns, our query strings are encrypted using transient rotating encryption keys, and it would be impossible to bookmark the pages in the first place. Ever see a bank let you bookmark its pages? Didn't think so.

    Security - We've been through the security audits of over a dozen international banks. There's no security concerns.

    Back button - Almost anything screws up the back button these days. AJAX screws it up even more than frames do. Do you see everyone preaching against AJAX?

    As for your comment about the appropriateness of navigation and sidebars: I'll refute it with a simple "hell yes". Hell yes they are appropriate. Our app uses 150k for the menuing system. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me I'm supposed to package that shit all back up and post it back with every AJAX call, and then stream it all back to the user when nothing changed?

    Our application dropped pagesize by 30% and response time by 50% when we moved to iframes. They work. They work wonderfully. Knee-jerk reactions against them are ridiculous.

  • Watson (unregistered) in reply to BD
    BD:
    However, Aristotle's views were ... all founded in a rigorous system of logic.
    ...and a total isolation from reality. (Okay, maybe he did count the teeth of men and women and found them to be different - but did he ask how many they had lost? And let's not get started on the Ethiopian semen.)
  • Zygo (unregistered) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:
    Lynx - welcome to the 20th century

    Indeed. Both W3M and Elinks handle frames. Alas, most of AJAX is still lost on these browsers, but otherwise they do a reasonably good job as long as the site doesn't absolutely rely on CSS positioning directives, Javascript, or Flash to work. W3M will even display images, which is an indescribably evil hack for a browser that based on ncurses.

    Last time I checked (which was version 2.8.3), Lynx couldn't even render HTML 2.0 tables. Given that there are not one but at least two other open-source browsers available with similar build- and run-time dependency footprints (i.e. they'll work on your vintage DEC VT102 terminal), it's amazing that anyone still uses Lynx for any purpose other than as the basis of straw-man arguments.

    JOHN:
    Ever see a bank let you bookmark its pages?

    Mine does. They only work after logging in, of course, so the usage is follow bookmark, go to login page instead, get session cookie, follow bookmarks again and they will work until the session timeout). My bank does use standard GET and POST request URLs and (except for the login page itself) works even in text-only browsers. Pages that are subject to potential replay attack (e.g. the payment form submission) require a confirmation page that does have unique hashed fields, but it's possible to bookmark the payment page itself, or create a local page that pastes parameters into the bank's page (something I use quite a lot for routine bills).

    Another bank I no longer do business with also had bookmarkable pages, although since their load-balancer redirected you to "wwwNN.bank.com" after login with random values of NN, the bookmarks would only work if you adjust the hostname.

    Frankly, if your browser has problems with bookmarking frames or the Back button, it's really your browser's fault. Netscape 3.0's busted frame behavior is not a specification that web browser UI designers are required to implement.

  • (cs) in reply to bz
    bz:
    I still find it annoying when people toss out technology simply because it has been deemed inferior or "not cool". [..snip...] 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.
    Sorry, but I vehemently disagree. A table is meant for tabular data - no more, no less. It is certainly not meant for layout. There are a few cases where CSS2 support among all major browsers is limited enough for a table to be useful in layout, but these are far and between.

    To summarise, using a table for layout generally indicates the level of ineptitude of the webdesigner involved. Sorry.

    I'll grant you that it's also not a good idea to jump on any which bandwagon without thinking it through properly, but that's hardly the case here.

  • (cs) in reply to xlq
    xlq:
    Since when was C++ low-level?!
    Since it replaced C. Which, sadly, as I can attest, it hasn't.

    It's low-level; get over it. It was designed to be low-level. That's what it is.

    Now, if you want to talk about libraries and C++0x, then that's a slightly different thing. Still low-level, but with the ability to, ahem, boost yourself up a notch.

    I see that nobody has yet commented on Gary's real brain-poop here, however. If you're going to insist that you're right and the rest of the "industry" is wrong, then why frames?

    What's wrong with the good ole command line?

  • J (unregistered) in reply to Todd

    I shall speak in 3rd person for the rest of the day in honor of this.

  • Nobby (unregistered)

    Gary and the industry are both wrong. I am right.

    Frames are not evil, they are a device, and can be used for good or evil. You decide

    CSS is also simply a device and can do much harm in the hands of wonks, and whilst I am an evangelist for CSS vs. tables, I do remember consistency between browsers being easier and faster to achieve using tables for page layout, but then I do get paid by the hour.

    Garys example is slightly difficult to fathom, but he is wrong, do not use frames for layout, ie, the build of the page. However if you have a need to bring 3rd party content into a page without programmatic integration, then use a frames, well an iframe. I once did this and no-one died. Seriously.

    Frames are really useful for web application UIs (in moderation, let's not go crazy), and web applications are not bound by the W3C guidelines, which themselves do not forbid frames, only their incorrect usage. People seem to get themselves tied in nots over what is good and what is evil. No, an angel in heaven does not die every time someone builds a page that fails W3C guidelines, compliance with guidelines provide no guarantee that your page is accessible to all visitors / users with impairments.

    IA + HTML + UAT = Yummy Goodness

  • Nobby (unregistered) in reply to JOHN

    Your navigation menu is 150KB? Is it made out of wood?!

  • ben (unregistered) in reply to Nobby

    And you persist in confusing frames and iframes for some weird reason.

  • Feek (unregistered) in reply to shadowman
    shadowman:
    iframes are not the same as frames. It's an entirely different kind of flying. Altogether.

    "It's an entirely different kind of flying."

  • Jon (unregistered)

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

    I am SOOOO writing that on the whiteboard at work first thing in the morning.

  • Jon (unregistered) in reply to Nobby
    Nobby:
    Frames are really useful for web application UIs (in moderation, let's not go crazy), and web applications are not bound by the W3C guidelines, which themselves do not forbid frames, only their incorrect usage.

    I tend to agree with you that the best use of a frame would be in the context of a web application, but even then they become difficult.

    One example is Yahoo! Mail. It used to be one of the best uses of frames on the web, but even it has foregone frames, and still has one of the best webmail interfaces on the planet. I'm a gmail user myself, and it's my favorite. Gmail doesn't use frame - it instead uses Javascript with RPCs (but even that causes problems sometimes - why can't a open an email in a damned tab?)

    Another example is PHPMyAdmin, but again, it's frames get annoying sometimes. For example, choose a database, and you'll see a list of tables in the left frame. Create a new table. You have to find a way to refresh the left frame before your new table will appear. It seems to me that a frame-less layout would work just as well even in PHPMyAdmin.

    So, that said, frames are best suited application UIs, but even then there's usually a better way, even if the better way takes a bit more time.

  • david (unregistered)

    Irony is waisted on you.

  • Zygo (unregistered) in reply to Jon

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

    The next time Alex renames this site, he should use that as the tagline.

  • James D (unregistered) in reply to bz

    As a web designer, let me tell you that since 1998 there has been no valid reason to ever use a frame.

    Ever.

    As to the Tables vs CSS debate, people who argue for or against one side or the other are complete retards. Tables WITH CSS is where the power lies. The whole point of CSS is to empower HTML, not replace it.

    Sadly, nowadays we either have the dinosaurs who refuse to evolve ("My frameset built in classic ASP is just as good, if not BETTER, than your newfangled CSS-styled, Flash-clogged, overcomplicated ASP.NET garbage") or the stupid wankers ("I built the whole thing using NOT ONE TABLE and seventeen Canvas tags. It only works in Opera and Firefox 3 Beta but who cares!").

    The truth is barely anyone really, honestly knows how to use CSS. And that's why I am in such demand, so I suppose I can't complain.

  • Daniel T (unregistered)

    Todays Dilbert connects nicely to this post http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert20080146683111.gif

  • Adrian Coles - UK (unregistered) in reply to Todd

    When I read in to this and imagine him talking... ...and then the name Gary...

    Sorry, but I can only picture the boss of Team America World Police...

    Now take one for the team and use frames!

  • (cs)

    Wow my pretentious-Ometer just went all the way to 11! The sad thing is I've met a lot of people like Gary. I'm going to go read Vintersorg lyrics now and get my daily dose of Existentialist Pretentsion.

  • JOHN (unregistered) in reply to Monomelodies
    Monomelodies:
    bz:
    I still find it annoying when people toss out technology simply because it has been deemed inferior or "not cool". [..snip...] 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.
    Sorry, but I vehemently disagree. A table is meant for tabular data - no more, no less. It is certainly not meant for layout. There are a few cases where CSS2 support among all major browsers is limited enough for a table to be useful in layout, but these are far and between.

    To summarise, using a table for layout generally indicates the level of ineptitude of the webdesigner involved. Sorry.

    I'll grant you that it's also not a good idea to jump on any which bandwagon without thinking it through properly, but that's hardly the case here.

    You're probably one of those types who love spending 5x longer on a project, hacking CSS files and javascript just to get your page to work on all browsers. Or maybe you just use one browser.

    Either way, CSS is retarded when you need complex layouts which are compatible across more than 1 browser version.

    Tables, however, work.

    I agree, tables are bad for layout in an ideal world. We do not live in this magical mystical ideal world. We live in the real world where we now have to support 6 (soon to be 8!) different browser versions, each one having its own little CSS quirks.

    CSS layout = maybe if they made the standard better (lol columns!) and maybe if any browsers followed it. Table layout = holy shit, something actually works and I didn't have to hack it 8 different ways!

  • Gho5t (unregistered) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:
    Monomelodies:
    bz:
    I still find it annoying when people toss out technology simply because it has been deemed inferior or "not cool". [..snip...] 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.
    Sorry, but I vehemently disagree. A table is meant for tabular data - no more, no less. It is certainly not meant for layout. There are a few cases where CSS2 support among all major browsers is limited enough for a table to be useful in layout, but these are far and between.

    To summarise, using a table for layout generally indicates the level of ineptitude of the webdesigner involved. Sorry.

    I'll grant you that it's also not a good idea to jump on any which bandwagon without thinking it through properly, but that's hardly the case here.

    You're probably one of those types who love spending 5x longer on a project, hacking CSS files and javascript just to get your page to work on all browsers. Or maybe you just use one browser.

    Either way, CSS is retarded when you need complex layouts which are compatible across more than 1 browser version.

    Tables, however, work.

    I agree, tables are bad for layout in an ideal world. We do not live in this magical mystical ideal world. We live in the real world where we now have to support 6 (soon to be 8!) different browser versions, each one having its own little CSS quirks.

    CSS layout = maybe if they made the standard better (lol columns!) and maybe if any browsers followed it. Table layout = holy shit, something actually works and I didn't have to hack it 8 different ways!

    Heh, you sure you're not just a lazy developer who isn't good at CSS? I make great CSS layouts in no-time. How? Because I actually learned how to use CSS properly. Did it ever occur to you that you just suck at CSS?

  • Agrona (unregistered)

    the tone of this is wonderful; reminds me of timecube.

  • Doug (unregistered)

    In case anybody is wondering, Gary's homepage is http://www.timecube.com

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