Jim M said:
The purpose of the original post was for a weekly calendar,
ie.. this would take 7 <iframes>, 7 hits to the server.
Next, I will go after a monthly calendar with scrolling
days... 31 <iframes>. The problem is that a large screen is
a great advantage when looking at a monthly calendar. It
seems so silly to be stuck with fixed sized days in my
calendar to get scrolling.
That's a misinterpretation of my suggestion. You could certainly have
branding/navigation in the primary document (or one of the frames), and the
calendar table in the IFRAME (or other frame). Here is an example of a
frameset with a big dynamic table in the content frame:
http://tinyurl.com/32zuf
I like this example because it demonstrates how you can visually present
subsets of a large set of content that is much larger than the window. The
user can choose how much to view at a time. Such an approach seems
well-suited for a calendar.
I do not think it is unusual of late for business
applications to require IE to run in order to get
functionality.
It clearly is not unusual. I do not think it wise, however. As has been
discussed in this and other groups, a dependence on IE is fine as long as IE
is functioning as expected. But when a not-insignificant percentage of my
corporation's users lost all client-side scripting in IE last year (which we
were only able to restore with the application of Win2K SP4), those users
could not access some of our vendor-supplied web apps, which required IE and
scripting. Our in-house apps, designed to standards rather than
implementations, were 100% accessible to those users, who simply switched to
Mozilla.
And I could go on and on about loss of sessions with IE and IIS, an issue
that emerged with IE 5.01, when the decision to "open new windows in a
separate process" was taken from the user and delegated to IE on the basis
of available resources. 100% of our sessions lost during active use are IE.
http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2157
Note that the session problem emerged with newer versions of IE. How
comfortable does that make you feel with IE-dependence?
In these very challenging times, many users would rather
pay less and get a good GUI and accept the limitation of
having to run in IE only. The alternative is to pay more
in development costs or get less in GUI.
I would argue that the ultimate costs of single-vendor dependence are
greater in the long run. We don't spend much extra effort writing to
standards. It takes work to get in a habit, but then it's a habit. And if
the little bit of effort allows us to cheaply walk away from the perilously
costly** Internet Explorer, then it's an easy call to make.
**Users simply are not sophisticated enough to deal with all of the threats
IE exposes them to. Even one of my very experienced colleagues fell victim
to a piece of adware, thinking he was installing something from one of our
vendors, but instead being rewarded with a new pop-up ad window every 10
seconds no matter where he browsed (even our intranet). I have seen some
pretty high-powered machines grind almost to a halt because of all the
adware/spyware that users said [Yes] to. IE is not free, in my opinion.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
The second and third row are stacked on one