Alan
> I wonder if some of this could be my fault...too many animated gifs,
> counters, clocks etc - all created in a frenzy of newly-acquired
> HTML skilled madness....anyway I am planning a "rationalisation" &
> "downsizing" to reduce the bandwidth strain & hope that some of you
> will contrinue to visit my page. BTW what's the consensus on frames?
> I like them but I know lots of others don't ???
I know, the temptation is so great! :-)
The rationalisation and downsizing is perhaps more important from the
viewer point of view. The best sites, in my view, are the simple
ones with lots and lots of "layers" should the viewer wishes to go
deeper.
Most people will wait for few seconds, if the first page doesn't
load, they are off! This called "site hopping" like in TV.
Frames: there is no consensus really. It's more a case of what you
like!
Personally, I advise to use frames *only* if you have to, and
preferrably, of the "borderless" variety (see the Microsoft site for
an example). There are very few people out there who can not see
frames. Do they matter? Do you care?
Like my esteemed friend John Farenden once said: "just because it can
be done doesn't mean it should be done".
Alan: if you are downsizing reluctantly, let me host you page for a
couple of weeks as an experiment to see if it is an access problem or
a site features one.
Al-Hakim
(in and outta the Faraday Cage at will!)
______________________________
Dr Ahmad Risk MBBCh
home: 01273-688121
work: 01737-240022
fax: 01737-244660
web: http://www.cybermedic.org/
______________________________
Dr Ahmad Risk MBBCh
home: 01273-688121
work: 01737-240022
fax: 01737-244660
web: http://www.cybermedic.org/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|