Webpage Designs

[Orior]

Anyone know of any free(or otherwise) webpage templates that I can use and adapt using Frontpage?

[Cerberus]

http://www.steves-templates.com/templates.html

http://www.elated.com/pagekits/

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...page+templates

Hope these are of some help

Of course it all depends on your personal taste and what you really want the site for. Good luck anyway

[Halcyon]

Whatever you do, avoid frames, clashing colours, and make sure you check your designs in atleast two browsers to check its viewable well.

[ikthius]

yip check in both IE6 and firefox, these 2 will give you a very good idea how the general public view your pages.

Also try to check your screen resolution, so you could try 800x600 1024x768 and higher, that means that everyone should see your pages correctly, some show your site differently.

I prefer to do it by hand, I learn faster that way.

ik

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Whatever you do, avoid frames, clashing colours, and make sure you check your designs in atleast two browsers to check its viewable well.

Why on earth does he need to avoid frames?

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Why on earth does he need to avoid frames?

Are you living in '96?
Who uses frames these days?
IFrames may still have their uses but frames are dead, along with spacer GIFs and the good old <font> tag.

[Mattitude]

Originally Posted by Richard M

<snip>
and the good old <font> tag.

I still use that

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Richard M

Are you living in '96?
Who uses frames these days?
IFrames may still have their uses but frames are dead, along with spacer GIFs and the good old <font> tag.

AbPerhaps you'd like to explain how to include content from a different domain not using frames, every single one of my customers uses a property feed from different providers which they're supplied just a URL (disregarding iframes as you cannot dynamically size them to the content cross domain), you normally find the people that bang on about frames being bad etc are those that end up designing the absolute ugliest sites.

[Alanmelon]

For those of who lack a vast amount of knowledge in webpage creation and coding (especially more advanced things like dynamic content), frames are very useful, and if used correctly, compatible with all commonly used browsers. For example, with my limited knowledge, the best way I know of creating a menu system without having to change every page with any modifications is by using frames.

IMO if it works, is easy for you and the user, then why all the snobbery about what should and shouldn't be used?

[Paulie]

I only use frames for the ease of selecting links for the exact reason that Alanmelon gives. It`s all the flash stuff that bugs the hell out of me.

[Matth]

Frames can be used well, or badly - the worst feature of frames is that the do not bookmark well, and are awkward for search engines.

A workaround is to ensure that there is a usable "Noframes" navigation path...
Get http://www.offbyone.com theOffbyone browser, set it to show noframes (options), and you will be getting a search engine's eye view ... "This uses frames, and your browser doesn't support them" is just not good enough - where a site normally works with an index frame and content pages, there should be a noframes index page (even if it's quick and dirty), and preferably backlinks in the content pages.

The other problems with frames, of getting an inner page with no frameset, can be resolved by a suitable script.

If to go to the extent of scripting a bookmarkable entry, by script-setting the frameset (eg. Framesetpage.htm?mainpage1), then you get to the point of negating the reload saving of using frames to split the constant index from the body pages - in that case, putting the index as an Iframe in each body page is probably better, with the current level of support for IFRAME.

A word on FONT, the evil FONT tag.

Before CSS styles, FONT was about the only way to vary text appearance in a directly specified manner - the other elements could do a few preset things.

Now, every elemement may be restyled in block, restyles selectively, or restyled individually - the ability to set a "very important" style and use it consistently (use a linked stylesheet for a whole site, in preference to embedded styles in each page) means that not only do the pages all conform to the same style, but that you can restyle them all with just a stylesheet adjustment.

The equivalent to the old FONT tag, is SPAN, an inline element that serves only as a placeholder for styles.
Of the "modern tags", the one I like most is DIV - unlike P, it can have space added above, below, both, or not at all, and it's great for doing inverse header lines - it can also be floated as a box, in the same way as images, and using DIV instead of misusing tables usually means a progressive render, while many browsers must complete a table before rendering it.

Of course, Offbyone, being trapped at HTML 3.2 level + frames, does not know DIV, SPAN, styles or IFRAME.
http://www.offbyone.com/ob1_tags.htm

[tomjleeds]

Use of CSS and server-side scripting has replaced <font> tags, tables and frames.

However, as you're new, play around with whatever you think looks good. Your taste and skill will evolve very quickly.

I really wanted to write a big long post about this, it's my subject, but I'm literally falling asleep...

[Strzelecki]

Frames are good for nasic page building, but they can't beat a good bit of php and css, plus do away with tables and use divs instead! Here's a few more disadvantages:

1. The browsers back button often doesn't work.
2. Frames can reduce the amount of usable space on the page.
3. The URL in the address bar usually always stays the same. Although some webmasters do this on purpose, it is generally considered undesirable for experienced web users.
4. Frames can create problems with printing.
5. If public opinion is important to your site, be aware that many people are vehemently anti-frames. Many reviewers and commentators think frames are for amateurs and will say so.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Strzelecki

Frames are good for nasic page building, but they can't beat a good bit of php and css, plus do away with tables and use divs instead! Here's a few more disadvantages:

1. The browsers back button often doesn't work.
2. Frames can reduce the amount of usable space on the page.
3. The URL in the address bar usually always stays the same. Although some webmasters do this on purpose, it is generally considered undesirable for experienced web users.
4. Frames can create problems with printing.
5. If public opinion is important to your site, be aware that many people are vehemently anti-frames. Many reviewers and commentators think frames are for amateurs and will say so.

I still guarantee I can build a better looking and more useable site using frames than any tw*t that complains about them

[Millay]

i agree in some circumstances frames are a must, and can be the only real way to get the site design to work, although I have not used them for a few years.

As for content from other sties/providers, I worry about directly linking to content for reasons of reliability , I prefer fetching the content and storing it locally... but each to his own