Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Hi All,

Here's what I have, but it doesn't jump down to the spot on the page.

Dr.
Carolyn DeMarco

The page it's going to has where I want to jump
to. This name tag works within the page because I use it to jump from
her top picture down to her detail.

If you need it, the code is on the page www.devitawellness.com/pub/electpoll.asp.

Any help to make this work would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Michele

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:

> If you need it, the code is on the page
> www.devitawellness.com/pub/electpoll.asp.

"The document you are looking for is missing. Click HOME at the top to
return to the DeVita Wellness website.

©2005 DeVita Wellness Institute of Living and Learning"

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 11:07 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
> mjones wrote:
> > If you need it, the code is on the page
> >www.devitawellness.com/pub/electpoll.asp.
>
> "The document you are looking for is missing. Click HOME at the top to
> return to the DeVita Wellness website.
>
> =A92005 DeVita Wellness Institute of Living and Learning"
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

I appologize; it's an iframe. This will work -
http://www.devitawellness.com/?url=3D/pub/elecpoll.asp.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> mjones wrote:
>>> If you need it, the code is on the page
>>>www.devitawellness.com/pub/electpoll.asp.
>>
>> "The document you are looking for is missing. Click HOME at the top to
>> return to the DeVita Wellness website.
>>
>> ©2005 DeVita Wellness Institute of Living and Learning"
>
> I appologize; it's an iframe. This will work -
> http://www.devitawellness.com/?url=/pub/elecpoll.asp.

[Please don't include the ending period with URLs; some newsreaders
can't separate that from the clickable link (though not mine). Thanks.]

""
...probably not if you wrote it correctly? (I don't use iframes)

There are plenty of errors:


Your meta keyword stuffing will get you penalties. Google and the others
stopped reading keywords sometime in the last millenium, due to abuse.
It is suggested that if the keywords do not appear in the content, you
may be dropped from indexing, though only Google knows its complete rule
set.

With the JavaScript stripped by my corporate firewall, your page is
nothing more than a heading and a large, long, empty blue box.
Approximately ~10% of your visitors will have JavaScript disabled or
stripped. You might as well turn your web server off for .. the month of
August .. every year.

After seeing the absurd (sorry) complexity of this layout - overused
JavaScript, mix of HTML 4.01 and HTML 3.2 - I believe I will bow out
trying to figure out your problem.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 11:34 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
> mjones wrote:
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> >> mjones wrote:
> >>> If you need it, the code is on the page
> >>>www.devitawellness.com/pub/electpoll.asp.
>
> >> "The document you are looking for is missing. Click HOME at the top to
> >> return to the DeVita Wellness website.
>
> >> =A92005 DeVita Wellness Institute of Living and Learning"
>
> > I appologize; it's an iframe. This will work -
> >http://www.devitawellness.com/?url=3D/pub/elecpoll.asp.
>
> [Please don't include the ending period with URLs; some newsreaders
> can't separate that from the clickable link (though not mine). Thanks.]
>
> ""
> ..probably not if you wrote it correctly? (I don't use iframes)
>
> There are plenty of errors:
> e..>
>
> Your meta keyword stuffing will get you penalties. Google and the others
> stopped reading keywords sometime in the last millenium, due to abuse.
> It is suggested that if the keywords do not appear in the content, you
> may be dropped from indexing, though only Google knows its complete rule
> set.
>
> With the JavaScript stripped by my corporate firewall, your page is
> nothing more than a heading and a large, long, empty blue box.
> Approximately ~10% of your visitors will have JavaScript disabled or
> stripped. You might as well turn your web server off for .. the month of
> August .. every year.
>
> After seeing the absurd (sorry) complexity of this layout - overused
> JavaScript, mix of HTML 4.01 and HTML 3.2 - I believe I will bow out
> trying to figure out your problem.
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Thank you for your frank opinion. This was an early website I did
when I just started learning html and a 'friend' helped me with it.
It turns out he wasn't such a friend after all - he was just trying to
get me to go out with him. But now I'm stuck with the code on four
websites and doing my best to carry on without him.

I ran it though w3.org's validator and you're right. It's a mess.

Again, thanks for trying.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 11:44 am, mjones wrote:
> On Aug 6, 11:34 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > mjones wrote:
> > > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> > >> mjones wrote:
> > >>> If you need it, the code is on the page
> > >>>www.devitawellness.com/pub/electpoll.asp.
>
> > >> "The document you are looking for is missing. Click HOME at the top=
to
> > >> return to the DeVita Wellness website.
>
> > >> =A92005 DeVita Wellness Institute of Living and Learning"
>
> > > I appologize; it's an iframe. This will work -
> > >http://www.devitawellness.com/?url=3D/pub/elecpoll.asp.
>
> > [Please don't include the ending period with URLs; some newsreaders
> > can't separate that from the clickable link (though not mine). Thanks.]
>
> > ""
> > ..probably not if you wrote it correctly? (I don't use iframes)
>
> > There are plenty of errors:
> > awe...>
>
> > Your meta keyword stuffing will get you penalties. Google and the others
> > stopped reading keywords sometime in the last millenium, due to abuse.
> > It is suggested that if the keywords do not appear in the content, you
> > may be dropped from indexing, though only Google knows its complete rule
> > set.
>
> > With the JavaScript stripped by my corporate firewall, your page is
> > nothing more than a heading and a large, long, empty blue box.
> > Approximately ~10% of your visitors will have JavaScript disabled or
> > stripped. You might as well turn your web server off for .. the month of
> > August .. every year.
>
> > After seeing the absurd (sorry) complexity of this layout - overused
> > JavaScript, mix of HTML 4.01 and HTML 3.2 - I believe I will bow out
> > trying to figure out your problem.
>
> > --
> > -bts
> > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
>
> Thank you for your frank opinion. This was an early website I did
> when I just started learning html and a 'friend' helped me with it.
> It turns out he wasn't such a friend after all - he was just trying to
> get me to go out with him. But now I'm stuck with the code on four
> websites and doing my best to carry on without him.
>
> I ran it though w3.org's validator and you're right. It's a mess.
>
> Again, thanks for trying.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi again,

I was able to validate the code. Is there any way you can possibly
look at it again? Please.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:

> I was able to validate the code. Is there any way you can possibly
> look at it again? Please.

Ok, that's a start. You do have some CSS errors, too.



The resulting page, though, is still a large empty blue box "for the
month of August"... :-)

Are you: http://www.quality-computing.com/ ?
...a large empty *dark* blue box. That site has the same problems. What
do you use to generate these pages? They are so intense they can't
possibly be hand-coded...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 1:56 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
> mjones wrote:
> > I was able to validate the code. Is there any way you can possibly
> > look at it again? Please.
>
> Ok, that's a start. You do have some CSS errors, too.
>
>
>
> The resulting page, though, is still a large empty blue box "for the
> month of August"... :-)
>
> Are you: http://www.quality-computing.com/?
> ..a large empty *dark* blue box. That site has the same problems. What
> do you use to generate these pages? They are so intense they can't
> possibly be hand-coded...
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Yes, I'm Quality Computing. Yes, same basic coding. I don't need to
tell you that Project Management is my thing, not html. I am getting
somewhat better with time (www.minusforty.ca), but still have a
considerable way to go. Also, the quality standard is set by the
client - how much time (read money) they give me to spend on it. It's
been my experience that once they see it on their screen, that's all
they care. My clients visualize the page as being typed in Word. On
the other hand, it's partly me learning on the job so to speak, too.
I really enjoy the design and wording aspects, but I'm not a
programmer, and prefer to employ programmers for web development
projects.

Yes, hand coded if I understand what you mean. I use HomeSite, and
because I type fast, I generally type the code I remember or just
TopStyle Lite (in HomeSite) to pick options.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'large empty *dark* blue box". This
website works in IE6, IE7 and pretty much in FireFox, has been for
several years, i.e. www.devitawellness.com works. Similarly, so does
www.energywellnessstudies.com. And the 'month of August'? Whatever
do you mean? It sounds like you're into the Tetigi software (the
webstats stuff) from the bottom of the pages. What browser do you
use?

Thanks for pointing me to the CSS validator. It will be useful
because I'm not sure about valid options at times. It's one thing
that makes me nuts. In HomeSite, when you right click a tag to edit
it and choose a StyleSheet style, you get TopStyle Lite. Then you
pick your styles (like font-style), but more often than not the styles
do nothing. It would be good if only the styles that are valid for
that tag will show in the list. I think I have to pick the right
thing from the Style Inspector drop down (I've got CSS2), but I'm not
sure hope that works. I just added that to my very long to do list.

Thanks again and sorry for being so green at this. Maybe I can help
you with project management sometime; I teach it.

Michele

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:
> On Aug 6, 1:56 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

>> The resulting page, though, is still a large empty blue box "for the
>> month of August"... :-)
>>
>> Are you: http://www.quality-computing.com/?
>> ..a large empty *dark* blue box. That site has the same problems.

>
> I'm not sure what you mean by a 'large empty *dark* blue box". This
> website works in IE6, IE7 and pretty much in FireFox, has been for
> several years, i.e. www.devitawellness.com works. Similarly, so does
> www.energywellnessstudies.com. And the 'month of August'? Whatever
> do you mean? It sounds like you're into the Tetigi software (the
> webstats stuff) from the bottom of the pages. What browser do you
> use?

Beauregard tends to travel unencumbered by JavaScript. With my JS turned
off I see vast tracts of empty space on (the default pages of) both the
sites mentioned. Doesn't matter what browser.


--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 2:47 pm, John Hosking
wrote:
> mjones wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 1:56 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> >> The resulting page, though, is still a large empty blue box "for the
> >> month of August"... :-)
>
> >> Are you: http://www.quality-computing.com/?
> >> ..a large empty *dark* blue box. That site has the same problems.
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by a 'large empty *dark* blue box". This
> > website works in IE6, IE7 and pretty much in FireFox, has been for
> > several years, i.e.www.devitawellness.comworks. Similarly, so does
> >www.energywellnessstudies.com. And the 'month of August'? Whatever
> > do you mean? It sounds like you're into the Tetigi software (the
> > webstats stuff) from the bottom of the pages. What browser do you
> > use?
>
> Beauregard tends to travel unencumbered by JavaScript. With my JS turned
> off I see vast tracts of empty space on (the default pages of) both the
> sites mentioned. Doesn't matter what browser.
>
> --
> John
> Pondering the value of the UIP:http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with JavaScript
disabled. I guess we're okay then. Whew.

We're getting 42% IE7, 42% IE6 and 15% Mozilla/Netscape5 - all English
(US and Canada). Not a fancy userbase.

My original question was, from this page - http://www.devitawellness.com/?u=
rl=3D/pub/elecpoll.asp
(see link below), why doesn't the result jump down to the name
DeMarco?

www.energywellnessstudies.com?
url=3Dhome/faculty.asp#DeMarco',
'DeMarco','toolbar=3Dyes,location=3Dyes,status=3Dno,menubar= 3Dyes,scrollbar=
s=3Dyes,re=AD
sizable=3Dyes,width=3D800,height=3D600')">Dr.
Carolyn DeMarco

I hope someone can help now that I've validated the code.

Thanks again all,

Michele

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On 2007-08-06, mjones wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2:47 pm, John Hosking
> wrote:
....
>> Beauregard tends to travel unencumbered by JavaScript. With my JS turned
>> off I see vast tracts of empty space on (the default pages of) both the
>> sites mentioned. Doesn't matter what browser.
>
> Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with JavaScript
> disabled. I guess we're okay then.

No, it means that a lot of people don't bother returning to your
site.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 5:02 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
> On 2007-08-06, mjones wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 2:47 pm, John Hosking
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> Beauregard tends to travel unencumbered by JavaScript. With my JS turned
> >> off I see vast tracts of empty space on (the default pages of) both the
> >> sites mentioned. Doesn't matter what browser.
>
> > Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with JavaScript
> > disabled. I guess we're okay then.
>
> No, it means that a lot of people don't bother returning to your
> site.
>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson
> ============================================================ =======
> Author:
> Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

How do I go about fixing it? Are you suggesting that I don't use
Javascript?

We're getting 47% returning visitors. For the client's industry, I'm
happy with that.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:

> Yes, hand coded if I understand what you mean. I use HomeSite, and
> because I type fast, I generally type the code I remember or just
> TopStyle Lite (in HomeSite) to pick options.

Your sites are not hand-coded. Hand-coding is when you type everything
in the "source" with your keyboard, not using a WYSIWYMG product such as
HoseSite. Using a simple text editor. Notepad, for example (though I use
a much better one than that).

> I'm not sure what you mean by a 'large empty *dark* blue box". This

My JavaScript is off. Turn yours off to see what I mean. Approximately
10% of your visitors will have JavaScript off/disabled/stripped and will
see no content in that large blue box. IOW, your pages are blank except
for the header at the top.

> website works in IE6, IE7 and pretty much in FireFox, has been for
> several years, i.e. www.devitawellness.com works. Similarly, so does
> www.energywellnessstudies.com. And the 'month of August'? Whatever
> do you mean? It sounds like you're into the Tetigi software (the
> webstats stuff) from the bottom of the pages. What browser do you
> use?

In a previous post, I said relying on JavaScript for important stuff
(like menus and content) is like turning your web server off for a month
every year. (Like August)

Doesn't matter what browser. I've looked at your sites with Firefox,
Opera, and Safari and they are the same.

Try OffByOne sometime; http://offbyone.com/

> Thanks for pointing me to the CSS validator. It will be useful
> because I'm not sure about valid options at times. It's one thing
> that makes me nuts. In HomeSite, when you right click a tag to edit
> it and choose a StyleSheet style, you get TopStyle Lite. Then you
> pick your styles (like font-style), but more often than not the styles
> do nothing. It would be good if only the styles that are valid for
> that tag will show in the list. I think I have to pick the right
> thing from the Style Inspector drop down (I've got CSS2), but I'm not
> sure hope that works. I just added that to my very long to do list.

I looked at TopStyle several years ago. I can type the stuff a lot
faster than using it to pick things...

> Thanks again and sorry for being so green at this. Maybe I can help
> you with project management sometime; I teach it.

No, I'm retired now...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:

> Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with JavaScript
> disabled. I guess we're okay then. Whew.

You need to worry. Do you know that the Googlebot won't see your content
either? It does not read and execute JavaScript.

Byebye search engines...

> We're getting 42% IE7, 42% IE6 and 15% Mozilla/Netscape5 - all
> English (US and Canada). Not a fancy userbase.

If your stats really say 15% Moz/Netscape5, then I wouldn't trust them
for percentage of JavaScript either.

I haven't seen Netscape 5 or less at my sites for months.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On 2007-08-06, mjones wrote:
> On Aug 6, 5:02 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
>> On 2007-08-06, mjones wrote:
>> > On Aug 6, 2:47 pm, John Hosking
>> > wrote:
>> ...
>> >> Beauregard tends to travel unencumbered by JavaScript. With my JS turned
>> >> off I see vast tracts of empty space on (the default pages of) both the
>> >> sites mentioned. Doesn't matter what browser.
>>
>> > Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with JavaScript
>> > disabled. I guess we're okay then.
>>
>> No, it means that a lot of people don't bother returning to your
>> site.
>
> How do I go about fixing it? Are you suggesting that I don't use
> Javascript?

Exactly!

> We're getting 47% returning visitors. For the client's industry, I'm
> happy with that.

Think how much more it would be without JS.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 6:10 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
> mjones wrote:
> > Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with JavaScript
> > disabled. I guess we're okay then. Whew.
>
> You need to worry. Do you know that the Googlebot won't see your content
> either? It does not read and execute JavaScript.
>
> Byebye search engines...
>
> > We're getting 42% IE7, 42% IE6 and 15% Mozilla/Netscape5 - all
> > English (US and Canada). Not a fancy userbase.
>
> If your stats really say 15% Moz/Netscape5, then I wouldn't trust them
> for percentage of JavaScript either.
>
> I haven't seen Netscape 5 or less at my sites for months.
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

I think the 15% is really Firefox (and Netscape) because Firefox is
not in the list and I know there are Firefox users. So given that, I
feel I can still trust the stats.

I see what you mean about Javascript, but as I mentioned above, our
user stats show 0.39% Java disabled and 0.77 JavaScript disabled.
These are not significant enough numbers (bye bye only a few days each
year) to make me throw out months of work and start again. I'm sure
my client will agree.

Also, one of my other clients is Sun Microsystems. I think they'd
like me to use their product.

Also, I wouldn't know how to go about redesigning the menuing system
in html. I think these sites are too big for that. I last site I
made I used a menu application called Infinite Menus. After quite a
bit of back and forth with them, I did get it to work
(www.minusforty.ca). I believe that BestBuy uses this one, too, but
they're not using iframes and (well, mine works better).

I do see your point though about Javascript, but I hope you can see
mine, too, and still hope you can help with the link to a particular
spot in a page.

Thanks for your time and interesting points,

Michele

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:

> I see what you mean about Javascript, but as I mentioned above, our
> user stats show 0.39% Java disabled and 0.77 JavaScript disabled.
> These are not significant enough numbers (bye bye only a few days each
> year) to make me throw out months of work and start again. I'm sure
> my client will agree.

You missed the part about the search engines not reading and executing
JavaScript. To them, it's a blank page(s). Your content will never be
indexed by Google and the others. How will people find you?

> Also, one of my other clients is Sun Microsystems. I think they'd
> like me to use their product.

What product is that?

> Also, I wouldn't know how to go about redesigning the menuing system
> in html. I think these sites are too big for that.

Our opinions differ on that.

> I last site I
> made I used a menu application called Infinite Menus. After quite a
> bit of back and forth with them, I did get it to work
> (www.minusforty.ca). I believe that BestBuy uses this one, too, but
> they're not using iframes and (well, mine works better).

"This page is expected to be completed very shortly." appears on quite
a number of pages. You shouldn't have those on the menu until completed.
I also found the minusforty site "confusing for a newbie" with
links/menus on the left, the top, and the right. A well-designed menu
should be all in one spot.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 6, 7:13 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
> mjones wrote:
> > I see what you mean about Javascript, but as I mentioned above, our
> > user stats show 0.39% Java disabled and 0.77 JavaScript disabled.
> > These are not significant enough numbers (bye bye only a few days each
> > year) to make me throw out months of work and start again. I'm sure
> > my client will agree.
>
> You missed the part about the search engines not reading and executing
> JavaScript. To them, it's a blank page(s). Your content will never be
> indexed by Google and the others. How will people find you?
>
> > Also, one of my other clients is Sun Microsystems. I think they'd
> > like me to use their product.
>
> What product is that?
>
> > Also, I wouldn't know how to go about redesigning the menuing system
> > in html. I think these sites are too big for that.
>
> Our opinions differ on that.
>
> > I last site I
> > made I used a menu application called Infinite Menus. After quite a
> > bit of back and forth with them, I did get it to work
> > (www.minusforty.ca). I believe that BestBuy uses this one, too, but
> > they're not using iframes and (well, mine works better).
>
> "This page is expected to be completed very shortly." appears on quite
> a number of pages. You shouldn't have those on the menu until completed.
> I also found the minusforty site "confusing for a newbie" with
> links/menus on the left, the top, and the right. A well-designed menu
> should be all in one spot.
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Thanks for your input on the minus forty site. It game me an idea
that will help the confusion.

I didn't say html menus were not possible. I have used them. I just
found them limiting, considering that I'm one of the limitations,
too. But then I didn't know about the Javascript search engine issue,
which puts a whole new light on things. Do you have an example of a
good html menu; one that has a main menu and submenus?

Do I understand you to mean that most websites with Javascript driven
menus will only get the pages indexed by search engines that can be
viewed without Javascript? Really? And then would it help to have a
site map in basic html as a stop gap measure to redoing all the code?

Thanks again,

Michele

P.S. - Any ideas on my original request?

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:

> I didn't say html menus were not possible. I have used them. I just
> found them limiting, considering that I'm one of the limitations,
> too. But then I didn't know about the Javascript search engine
> issue, which puts a whole new light on things. Do you have an
> example of a good html menu; one that has a main menu and submenus?

One of mine: http://fingerlakesbmw.org/

> Do I understand you to mean that most websites with Javascript driven
> menus will only get the pages indexed by search engines that can be
> viewed without Javascript?

Yes, that's it. Your content does not appear unless JavaScript is
executed. The search engine bots do not do that, so no content. Nothing
to index except your header.

> Really? And then would it help to have a site map in basic html as a
> stop gap measure to redoing all the code?

A site map is always a good idea, for both the bots and your visitors.
Howsomeever, when the bot follows your site map links to the other
pages, and the JavaScript *doesn't execute*, no content is seen.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> mjones wrote:
>
>> Yes, hand coded if I understand what you mean. I use HomeSite,
>
> Your sites are not hand-coded. Hand-coding is when you type everything
> in the "source" with your keyboard, not using a WYSIWYMG product such as
> HoseSite.

You are mistaken here. I've been using HomeSite for years. It's a very
good plain text editor and web authoring tool. Some versions do have
some WYSIWYG-like features, but they are best ignored.

--
Berg

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Bergamot wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> mjones wrote:
>>> Yes, hand coded if I understand what you mean. I use HomeSite,
>>
>> Your sites are not hand-coded. Hand-coding is when you type
>> everything in the "source" with your keyboard, not using a WYSIWYMG
>> product such as HoseSite.
>
> You are mistaken here. I've been using HomeSite for years. It's a
> very good plain text editor and web authoring tool. Some versions do
> have some WYSIWYG-like features, but they are best ignored.

I may be confusing it with GoLive... but are you saying mjones typed
all that code manually? It looks so .. generated! :-)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On Aug 7, 1:27 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
> Bergamot wrote:
> > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> >> mjones wrote:
> >>> Yes, hand coded if I understand what you mean. I use HomeSite,
>
> >> Your sites are not hand-coded. Hand-coding is when you type
> >> everything in the "source" with your keyboard, not using a WYSIWYMG
> >> product such as HoseSite.
>
> > You are mistaken here. I've been using HomeSite for years. It's a
> > very good plain text editor and web authoring tool. Some versions do
> > have some WYSIWYG-like features, but they are best ignored.
>
> I may be confusing it with GoLive... but are you saying mjones typed
> all that code manually? It looks so .. generated! :-)
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Ya, I typed most of it, unless I copied/pasted or used the pick from
the list method. HomeSite isn't WYSIWYMG. What do the experts use if
not HomeSite or Dreamweaver?

Thanks for the menu example Bergamot. I'm not a fan of the expanding/
contracting type of menu, however. It makes me motion sick, but I
know many like it. I call it mystery meat - you don't know what's
there until you mouse over or click.

I guess that's a no then on my original request.

I appreciate all your comments and ideas.

Thanks all and good night,

Michele

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:20:29 GMT
mjones scribed:

> Thanks for the menu example Bergamot. I'm not a fan of the expanding/
> contracting type of menu, however. It makes me motion sick, but I
> know many like it. I call it mystery meat - you don't know what's
> there until you mouse over or click.
>
> I guess that's a no then on my original request.
>
> I appreciate all your comments and ideas.
>
> Thanks all and good night,

I see the sign of the cause of the original problem. The content is being
delayed in loading (-include? -iframe? -javascript manipulation?) so
there is nothing "there yet" when the hash, #demarco, tries to operate.
When the content finally does appear, it's too late.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:20:29 GMT
> mjones scribed:
>
> > Thanks for the menu example Bergamot. I'm not a fan of the expanding/
> > contracting type of menu, however. It makes me motion sick, but I
> > know many like it. I call it mystery meat - you don't know what's
> > there until you mouse over or click.
> >
> > I guess that's a no then on my original request.
> >
> > I appreciate all your comments and ideas.
> >
> > Thanks all and good night,
>
> I see the sign of the cause of the original problem. The content is being
> delayed in loading (-include? -iframe? -javascript manipulation?) so
> there is nothing "there yet" when the hash, #demarco, tries to operate.
> When the content finally does appear, it's too late.

Loading stuff in frames or iframes does take time, a problem especially
if other frames rely on the loaded information. I got round this sort of
problem by having the onLoad event of the slow-loading frame set a flag.
You can use a timer event elsewhere to pick this up. Unfortunately you
need to do this in a loop as JS doesn't give you the proper tools, but
at least you can avoid running the CPU at 100% by not simply spinning on
the flag.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:23:41
GMT Tim Streater scribed:

>> > I guess that's a no then on my original request.
>> >
>> > I appreciate all your comments and ideas.
>> >
>> > Thanks all and good night,
>>
>> I see the sign of the cause of the original problem. The content is
>> being delayed in loading (-include? -iframe? -javascript
>> manipulation?) so there is nothing "there yet" when the hash,
>> #demarco, tries to operate. When the content finally does appear,
>> it's too late.
>
> Loading stuff in frames or iframes does take time, a problem
> especially if other frames rely on the loaded information. I got round
> this sort of problem by having the onLoad event of the slow-loading
> frame set a flag. You can use a timer event elsewhere to pick this up.
> Unfortunately you need to do this in a loop as JS doesn't give you the
> proper tools, but at least you can avoid running the CPU at 100% by
> not simply spinning on the flag.

That could work for the OP's problem by capturing any hash immediately and
processing it later. Might be a moderate PIA, though.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Bergamot wrote:
>
>> I've been using HomeSite for years. It's a
>> very good plain text editor and web authoring tool.
>
> I may be confusing it with GoLive...

No comparison, really. :) HomeSite was created by a company called
Allaire (who also created Cold Fusion), which was bought by Macromedia
in 2001 and is now of course owned by Adobe. That ownership the only
thing HomeSite has in common with GoLive.

> but are you saying mjones typed
> all that code manually? It looks so .. generated! :-)

If it's that ugly, he more likely copy and pasted manually. :)

--
Berg

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

mjones wrote:
>
> Thanks for the menu example Bergamot.

Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't know what you are
referring to.

--
Berg

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed mjones computing.com> writing in news:1186434912.350208.135740
@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

>> > Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with
JavaScript
>> > disabled. I guess we're okay then.
>>
>> No, it means that a lot of people don't bother returning to your
>> site.
>>
>
> How do I go about fixing it? Are you suggesting that I don't use
> Javascript?

Javascript should be used as an enhancement. When vital elements do not
work, then yes, it's time to get rid of the javascript. Do something
server side.

>
> We're getting 47% returning visitors. For the client's industry, I'm
> happy with that.
>

You could be getting better.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

In article ,
Adrienne Boswell wrote:

> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed mjones > computing.com> writing in news:1186434912.350208.135740
> @r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > Our user stats show 0.39% with Java disabled and 0.77% with
> JavaScript
> >> > disabled. I guess we're okay then.
> >>
> >> No, it means that a lot of people don't bother returning to your
> >> site.
> >>
> >
> > How do I go about fixing it? Are you suggesting that I don't use
> > Javascript?
>
> Javascript should be used as an enhancement. When vital elements do not
> work, then yes, it's time to get rid of the javascript. Do something
> server side.

Is this a general rule, then?

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Tim Streater wrote:

> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>> Javascript should be used as an enhancement. When vital elements do
>> not work, then yes, it's time to get rid of the javascript. Do
>> something server side.
>
> Is this a general rule, then?

A real rule? Probably not, but would you want to risk losing ~10% of
your annual business because visitors couldn't navigate your web site?
It's not an actual rule, but it certainly is good common sense, eh?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

In article ,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

> Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> >> Javascript should be used as an enhancement. When vital elements do
> >> not work, then yes, it's time to get rid of the javascript. Do
> >> something server side.
> >
> > Is this a general rule, then?
>
> A real rule? Probably not, but would you want to risk losing ~10% of
> your annual business because visitors couldn't navigate your web site?
> It's not an actual rule, but it certainly is good common sense, eh?

Well, it depends, doesn't it? The wesbite I manage at work is a front
end to our assets database. It's used by our engineers, finance,
development, and operations teams, and by selected engineers of some of
our customers. It wouldn't work worth beans with extensive use of
Javascript, PHP, and iframes.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Tim Streater wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>>>> Javascript should be used as an enhancement. When vital elements
>>>> do not work, then yes, it's time to get rid of the javascript. Do
>>>> something server side.
>>>
>>> Is this a general rule, then?
>>
>> A real rule? Probably not, but would you want to risk losing ~10%
>> of your annual business because visitors couldn't navigate your web
>> site? It's not an actual rule, but it certainly is good common
>> sense, eh?
>
> Well, it depends, doesn't it? The wesbite I manage at work is a front
> end to our assets database. It's used by our engineers, finance,
> development, and operations teams, and by selected engineers of some
> of our customers.

Your description implies that you have access control to this web site,
and that it is not a public site. If so, you can demand that your
engineers et al, have JavaScript enabled. You can even demand that they
all use "Internet Explorer 6 and above" if you wish.

> It wouldn't work worth beans with [without?] extensive use of
> Javascript, PHP, and iframes.

That would be your choice. PHP of course is server-side, and not
dependent upon the visitors' browser. Some people, though not as many as
with JavaScript, may block iframes as well.

Opera: Tools > Preferences > Advanced tab > Content
[ Style Options ] > Display tab
[X] Enable frames
[ ] Enable inline frames

Firefox: URL: about:config
Filter: frame
Change value for: browser.frames.enabled to false

We are saying that an author should not use a technology on a public
site that will render the site useless for a fair chunk of visitors.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

In article ,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

> Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> >> Tim Streater wrote:
> >>> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> >>>> Javascript should be used as an enhancement. When vital elements
> >>>> do not work, then yes, it's time to get rid of the javascript. Do
> >>>> something server side.
> >>>
> >>> Is this a general rule, then?
> >>
> >> A real rule? Probably not, but would you want to risk losing ~10%
> >> of your annual business because visitors couldn't navigate your web
> >> site? It's not an actual rule, but it certainly is good common
> >> sense, eh?
> >
> > Well, it depends, doesn't it? The wesbite I manage at work is a front
> > end to our assets database. It's used by our engineers, finance,
> > development, and operations teams, and by selected engineers of some
> > of our customers.
>
> Your description implies that you have access control to this web site,
> and that it is not a public site.

Correct.

> If so, you can demand that your
> engineers et al, have JavaScript enabled. You can even demand that they
> all use "Internet Explorer 6 and above" if you wish.

Well, I don't go that far :-)

In fact it's unlikely they will be using IE, in my experience, although
I test against several browsers including IE.

> > It wouldn't work worth beans with [without?] extensive use of
> > Javascript, PHP, and iframes.

Typo, sorry.

> That would be your choice. PHP of course is server-side, and not
> dependent upon the visitors' browser. Some people, though not as many as
> with JavaScript, may block iframes as well.
>
> Opera: Tools > Preferences > Advanced tab > Content
> [ Style Options ] > Display tab
> [X] Enable frames
> [ ] Enable inline frames
>
> Firefox: URL: about:config
> Filter: frame
> Change value for: browser.frames.enabled to false
>
> We are saying that an author should not use a technology on a public
> site that will render the site useless for a fair chunk of visitors.

Depends if the author cares (or needs to care), I suppose. They can
always put some caveats on the page somewhere. That said, I can
obviously imagine that if the site is aimed at getting more and more
visitors it's important that it work for a wider set.

I've had no formal training in the area, so it could easily be that I do
a number of things the hard way without being aware of that. E.g I use
cascading popups where the content of popup n is set when the user
chooses from popup n-1. This avoids the popups containing several
hundred items, 90% of which are not relevant. My solution is to use the
results of the choice for popup n-1, to drive what is then loaded into
the iframe containing popup n. This also reduces the load on the
database server, and the size of the downloaded page.

So I'm quite proud of myself.

But then I lurk here, and I see it said that:

1) Javascript evil
2) Frames evil
3) iframes evil

and I'm never quite sure whether that's because:

1) the statements made pertain to a particular set of circumstances
2) these things really *are* evil and I am a bozo for being ignorant of
some other technique which solves all my problems pronto.

Hence my question.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Tim Streater wrote:

> But then I lurk here, and I see it said that:
>
> 1) Javascript evil

Very useful but because of past abuse and security flaws I would say not
dependable.

> 2) Frames evil

Was an ad hoc way of modularizing web page content (or steal it) before
server-side solutions were readily available or affordable. Server-side
is far superior without the well discussed problems frames cause. Why
would you use an ax to cut down a tree after the advent of the chainsaw?

> 3) iframes evil

Ditto! Just an MS's take on the frame. As I recall frame was Netscape's
baby...

>
> and I'm never quite sure whether that's because:
>
> 1) the statements made pertain to a particular set of circumstances
> 2) these things really *are* evil and I am a bozo for being ignorant of
> some other technique which solves all my problems pronto.
>
> Hence my question.

I'd say a little from #1 and a little from #2 ;-)


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Tim Streater wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

>> We are saying that an author should not use a technology on a public
>> site that will render the site useless for a fair chunk of visitors.
>
> Depends if the author cares (or needs to care), I suppose. They can
> always put some caveats on the page somewhere. That said, I can
> obviously imagine that if the site is aimed at getting more and more
> visitors it's important that it work for a wider set.

Caveats might work, in some circumstances. There was a poster in one of
these groups the other day, asking for some assistance on a site that
relied on JavaScript to display everything but the header logo and the
footer. To a visitor with JavaScript unavailable, the page was no more
than that logo, and a long, wide, empty blue box about three viewports
long. No navigation either.

> But then I lurk here, and I see it said that:
>
> 1) Javascript evil
> 2) Frames evil
> 3) iframes evil
>
> and I'm never quite sure whether that's because:
>
> 1) the statements made pertain to a particular set of circumstances
> 2) these things really *are* evil and I am a bozo for being ignorant of
> some other technique which solves all my problems pronto.

1. Ok for fluff but not important stuff.
2. Google for "frames are evil"
3. May be ok if for your own stuff (not capturing someone else's page)
and not too important.

> Hence my question.

Understood.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

On 2007-08-09, Tim Streater wrote:
[...]
> But then I lurk here, and I see it said that:
>
> 1) Javascript evil

JavaScript isn't evil at all and there are lots of things you can't do
any other way (at least not with just HTML and CSS).

So use it for those things, but not for things you can do perfectly well
or better with HTML and CSS.

> 2) Frames evil
> 3) iframes evil

But you don't very often need either of these.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:32:27 GMT
Jonathan N. Little scribed:

>> 2) Frames evil
>
> Was an ad hoc way of modularizing web page content (or steal it) before
> server-side solutions were readily available or affordable. Server-side
> is far superior without the well discussed problems frames cause. Why
> would you use an ax to cut down a tree after the advent of the chainsaw?

1. Perhaps he saw "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and was traumatized.
2. Perhaps he thinks he's George Washington.
3. Perhap he just wants to build-up some muscles to impress the girls.
4. Perhaps the buzz saw is outta gas.

Remember, just because something's old doesn't mean it's useless, and I'm
sure Duende has some equally-worthwhile saving graces, too.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: Link to another website, in an iframe, to a spot on page

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Your description implies that you have access control to this web site,
> and that it is not a public site. If so, you can demand that your
> engineers et al, have JavaScript enabled. You can even demand that they
> all use "Internet Explorer 6 and above" if you wish.

Or Netscape 4! He has The Power! :)


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html