Frames-Oriented Question

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

Sure it has, I'll repeat them just the same:

Well it didn't appear from here, and I don't want to get into a flame war
with anyone about it, so.. thanks for the links.

Both of the above take the immediate role of 'frames are bad', and merely
echo the wide-brushed one-liners already seen here. html-faq.com would
appear to be a kind of compiled form of this newsgroup, controlled by folks
who on first glance appear to be on the "frames are evil, get used to it and
accept it" bandwagon. I'll have to unfortunately plow through it just to
see if there's any technical information to be had.

This looks initially like nothing more than an echo of the 'frames are bad'
bunch, linking back to the html-faq.com site. But the latter bits look more
positive. I prefer solutions to just complaining. More on this when I get
into it more.

It says, "Your page uses frames. Google supports frames to the extent that
it can. Frames tend to cause problems with search engines, bookmarks,
emailing links and so on, because frames don't fit the conceptual model of
the web (every page corresponds to a single URL). If a user's query matches
the site as a whole, Google returns the frame set. If a user's query matches
an individual page on the site, Google returns that page. That individual
page is not displayed in a frame -- because there may be no frame set
corresponding to that page."

On that basis, it would appear that paying attention to ones web site design
when implementing a frames-based model most likely produces a web site that
indexes just fine with Google. Looking at the sections of my own site, what
if each one of the major sections had their own frame set?

From my standpoint I've found that most of the problems created with frames
implementation involved:

1. Not cleaning up after a page/frame close.
2. Not linking via new windows to external urls.
3. Leaving other open-ended parts of the code.
4. Making the menus or internal links at the top end behave on a linear
basis, with possible non-returns to same.

I'll read more from the above links and let you know what I glean. Thx.

 

[David Dorward]

Quoth the raven named Revd. Norle Enturbulata:


End of problem (perhaps) for those visitors who have JavaScript,
present and enabled.

As far as I know, most browsers don't provide a mechanism for bookmarking
via JavaScript anyway.

 

[Spartanicus]

Both of the above take the immediate role of 'frames are bad', and merely
echo the wide-brushed one-liners already seen here. html-faq.com would
appear to be a kind of compiled form of this newsgroup, controlled by folks
who on first glance appear to be on the "frames are evil, get used to it and
accept it" bandwagon. I'll have to unfortunately plow through it just to
see if there's any technical information to be had.

You have a point there.

The reality is that most of the frame issues can be alleviated for most
users, this however requires client side scripting to be enabled, and
relying on client side scripting for something essential is unacceptable
to most here, myself included.

It says, "Your page uses frames. Google supports frames to the extent that
it can. Frames tend to cause problems with search engines, bookmarks,
emailing links and so on, because frames don't fit the conceptual model of
the web (every page corresponds to a single URL). If a user's query matches
the site as a whole, Google returns the frame set. If a user's query matches
an individual page on the site, Google returns that page. That individual
page is not displayed in a frame -- because there may be no frame set
corresponding to that page."

On that basis, it would appear that paying attention to ones web site design
when implementing a frames-based model most likely produces a web site that
indexes just fine with Google. Looking at the sections of my own site, what
if each one of the major sections had their own frame set?

That properly solves the bookmarking issue, SEs will still link to
unframed content. The only way to alleviate this issue is with
javascript.

"Proper" usage of frames means:
1) Repeating the content in each page's <noframes> section
2) All pages have their own frameset
3) Each page has javascript that detects if it's correctly loaded inside
it's frameset, if not it redirects.

Virtually no one implements all these measures, I used to do it, but
what finally swayed me was the fact that the site was a pig to maintain.
The only way to solve that is by generating the site via templates and
inserting the content from a database.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Spartanicus:

"Proper" usage of frames means:
1) Repeating the content in each page's <noframes> section

"This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them."

4,080,000 people can't be wrong, can they?

<http://www.google.com/search?q="thi...illa-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8>

....

Virtually no one implements all these measures, I used to do it,
but what finally swayed me was the fact that the site was a pig to
maintain.

A prime candidate for a sig line. I tried to do a framed site once,
using a popular WYSINWYG editor. "Pig" is being too kind. I threw it
out, moved to SSI and haven't looked back.

The only way to solve that is by generating the site via templates
and inserting the content from a database.

...or even making a copy'n'paste template using server-side includes is
so much easier than trying to do a frames site correctly.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

On that basis, it would appear that paying attention to ones web site design
when implementing a frames-based model most likely produces a web site that
indexes just fine with Google. Looking at the sections of my own site, what
if each one of the major sections had their own frame set?

To negate the navigational problems with frames, ideally each *page* needs
its own frameset. Additionally, the <noframes> content for each frameset
ought to then be a copy of the page that corresponds to that frameset plus
some navigation.

 

[Kris]

The nurse doesn't allow me.

I'll bet. But since that's not what I was discussing it's a moot point.[/QUOTE]

You go on what you were discussing and this group can go on with their
business. Don't waste time replying to me anymore, I won't read it.

 

[David Dorward]

To negate the navigational problems with frames, ideally each *page* needs
its own frameset. Additionally, the <noframes> content for each frameset
ought to then be a copy of the page that corresponds to that frameset plus
some navigation.

....and then the sites robots.txt file should request that search engines not
index the documents referenced by the src attribute of the <frame> tags.

 

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

...and then the sites robots.txt file should request that search engines not
index the documents referenced by the src attribute of the <frame> tags.

For what reason?

 

[Steve Pugh]

For what reason?

Because when the search engine sends a user to a page it sends them to
a single URL, which means either a single page or a single frameset
document. Neither you as author nor the user, wants to end up on an
incomplete page that only makes sense when seen along with other pages
within a frameset.

So you create a frameset (with proper noframes content) for every set
of pages and only allow search engines to index the framesets. That
way users can (a) land on any part of site and (b) only land on
complete framesets.

Steve

 

[Revd. Norle Enturbulata]

Because when the search engine sends a user to a page it sends them to
a single URL, which means either a single page or a single frameset
document. Neither you as author nor the user, wants to end up on an
incomplete page that only makes sense when seen along with other pages
within a frameset.

So you create a frameset (with proper noframes content) for every set
of pages and only allow search engines to index the framesets. That
way users can (a) land on any part of site and (b) only land on
complete framesets.

Aha! Thank you! Dese pieces comin' together with your help.


--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"Better than 90 percent of what my
father has written about himself is untrue."
- Ron deWolf, son of L. Ron Hubbard