To Frame or not?

[Leythos]

I hate to ask this, as I don't want to get into any battles, but I'm
churning out several small static sites with a left/top/body frame set and
then changing the body frame for the content. all pages are just .htm
pages.

I code by hand (notepad) or using Dreamweaver MX 2004, and also do .Net
and ASP, but for the simple ones I'm just using frames.

I keep hearing how frames are bad things - but I don't see any indication
that browsers are discontinuing support for frames, or that they really
cause any problems, and they make life very simple.

So, without getting into some zealotry war, if you're not using frames,
why not and what do you do instead?

Thanks.

 

[Carolyn Marenger]

I hate to ask this, as I don't want to get into any battles, but I'm
churning out several small static sites with a left/top/body frame set and
then changing the body frame for the content. all pages are just .htm
pages.

I code by hand (notepad) or using Dreamweaver MX 2004, and also do .Net
and ASP, but for the simple ones I'm just using frames.

I keep hearing how frames are bad things - but I don't see any indication
that browsers are discontinuing support for frames, or that they really
cause any problems, and they make life very simple.

So, without getting into some zealotry war, if you're not using frames,
why not and what do you do instead?

Thanks.

I am using SSI, server side includes. I have a static menu, header, and
footer, that are loaded into each document. I use CSS for document layout
creating a content section that appears beside the menu and the
header/footer above/below the content.

Carolyn

 

[Philip Ronan]

I keep hearing how frames are bad things - but I don't see any indication
that browsers are discontinuing support for frames, or that they really
cause any problems, and they make life very simple.

They really DO cause problems. And no they DON'T make life any simpler. This
has been discussed at length in various places; Google for "frames are evil"
and you'll see what the problems are.

So, without getting into some zealotry war, if you're not using frames,
why not and what do you do instead?

The main problems are the inability of users to bookmark your pages
successfully, and the inability of search engines (or any other web page) to
provide a link to a frameset containing arbitrary pages. They also cause
accessibility problems. Just search Google like I said.

Instead, I just copy and paste in most cases. It doesn't take up much of my
time, and I try to write efficient HTML/CSS so it doesn't affect download
times significantly either.

Other alternatives are SSI PHP include() statements. Although using these
techniques can make your pages less cacheable, which causes other (albeit
far less less catastrophic) problems. (Search Google for "cacheability").

 

[Travis Newbury]

The main problems are the inability of users to bookmark your pages
successfully, and the inability of search engines (or any other web page) to
provide a link to a frameset containing arbitrary pages. They also cause
accessibility problems.

These things are not important to everyone, therefore frames are not
bad for them. (I am not advocating the use of frames, just pointing
out that your reasons are not important to everyone)

 

[Philip Ronan]

These things are not important to everyone,

Only in the sense that seatbelts aren't important to cyclists.

If you don't want an accessible site, you don't care about being found in
search engines, you don't care if people can't bookmark your pages, then go
right ahead.

therefore frames are not bad for them.

If they're only bad for a subset of your visitors, they're still bad for
everyone else.

(I am not advocating the use of frames, just pointing
out that your reasons are not important to everyone)

But web pages generally ARE for everyone.

 

[Leythos]

They really DO cause problems. And no they DON'T make life any simpler.
This has been discussed at length in various places; Google for "frames
are evil" and you'll see what the problems are.


The main problems are the inability of users to bookmark your pages
successfully, and the inability of search engines (or any other web
page) to provide a link to a frameset containing arbitrary pages. They
also cause accessibility problems. Just search Google like I said.

I've found this to be a PITA on my commercial site - it's static, but has
about 30 pages, and GOOGLE searches link to the individual page and not
the main site/frames... I found some js that takes the user to the main
site, but I can't figure how to get them to the main site and then load
the proper frame from the search.

Instead, I just copy and paste in most cases. It doesn't take up much of
my time, and I try to write efficient HTML/CSS so it doesn't affect
download times significantly either.

I could do that, even templates, but I was wondering about the issues of
frames - just wondering out-loud.

Other alternatives are SSI PHP include() statements. Although using
these techniques can make your pages less cacheable, which causes other
(albeit far less less catastrophic) problems. (Search Google for
"cacheability").

I've been doing shtml pages and includes on a number of sites, I have a
bunch of IIS servers and even use PHP, but I was trying to stick with
static html documents so that the site owners could edit them when needed
(if needed) and so they would run on any server.

I'll start looking at not using frames.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Only in the sense that seatbelts aren't important to cyclists.

The gravitational pull of Vega is unimportant to the people cleaning
the stabes at belomt too. That is just as relevent of an analogy as
yours.

If you don't want an accessible site, you don't care about being found in
search engines, you don't care if people can't bookmark your pages, then go
right ahead.

There are thousands of sites are unconcerned about the accesability of
their site or the placement in google.

But web pages generally ARE for everyone.

The key word is "generally" Many sites don't fit into the "generally"
catagory. Entertainment, Educational (on-line CBT), and game sites
come to mind right away. To these types of sites the presentation of
the content is equally or more important than the content istelf.
Disagree all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Philip Ronan]

Disagree all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.

You haven't proved anything.

This has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, so I'm not going to waste my
time arguing with you here.

As someone once said, "You should design a site so it is most effective for
your specific market." On the WWW, frames are *never* the most effective
solution.

Have the last word if you want; I'm finished with this discussion.

 

[Travis Newbury]

As someone once said, "You should design a site so it is most effective for
your specific market." On the WWW, frames are *never* the most effective
solution.
Have the last word if you want; I'm finished with this discussion.

The last word is simple, we disagree. No biggy,it is ok to disagree.

 

[Leythos]

The last word is simple, we disagree. No biggy,it is ok to disagree.

Since I started this thread, in reality I wanted an excuse to stop using
frames, and now that I've read a couple things that really annoy me with
Frames, I've decided to stop using them.

It took some time last night, but I managed to convert one 12 page site
from frames to no-frames and use a template with includes to make it
simple, but I really hate the redrawing of the top/left sides when I
render the new body content (in the non-frame version).

I suppose, in reality, I could put the body content in a subfolder, then
do an include in every page, much like a frame is done, and then just pass
the proper body inside the post when the user selects a nav button.

Thanks for all that responded, it's given me more to think about.

 

[DU]

I hate to ask this, as I don't want to get into any battles, but I'm
churning out several small static sites with a left/top/body frame set and
then changing the body frame for the content. all pages are just .htm
pages.

I code by hand (notepad)

An advanced editor brings syntax coloring, line numbering, HTML
validation feature, etc..

or using Dreamweaver MX 2004,

In the mid-term, Nvu 1.x will be better than DreamWeaver and is going to
be free.

and also do .Net

and ASP, but for the simple ones I'm just using frames.

I keep hearing how frames are bad things - but I don't see any indication
that browsers are discontinuing support for frames,

Frames bring usability burden to users in various areas: bookmarking,
navigation, indexing, security, etc...

{
"Frames introduced several usability problem that caused several
commentators to advise Web site builders to avoid them at all costs.
Examples of such usability problems are:

* The [back] button works unintuitively in many cases.
* You cannot bookmark a collection of documents in a frameset.
* If you do a [reload], the result may be different to what you had.
* [page up] and [page down] are often hard to do.
* You can get trapped in a frameset.
* Searching finds HTML pages, not Framed pages, so search results
usually give you pages without the navigation context that they were
intended to be in.
* Since you can't content negotiatiate, noframes markup is
necessary for user agents that don't support frames. However, almost no
one produces noframes content, and so it ruins Web searches, since
search engines are examples of user agents that do not support frames.
* There are security problems caused by the fact that it is not
visible to the user when different frames come from different sources.
"
}
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xframes-20020806/#s_intro

Why are frames so evil?
http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

Frames - The Problems And Solutions
http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/

or that they really

cause any problems, and they make life very simple.

So, without getting into some zealotry war, if you're not using frames,
why not and what do you do instead?

Instead, I use position: fixed and I use <link rel=""> for intra-site
navigation and <link rel=""> for intra-webpage navigation.

W3C Quality Assurance tip: Use <link>s in your document
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/use-links

Link Bars
How Link Relations Are Implemented
http://webcoder.info/reference/LinkBars.html

DU

 

[Travis Newbury]

disagree.
Since I started this thread, in reality I wanted an excuse to stop using
frames, and now that I've read a couple things that really annoy me with
Frames, I've decided to stop using them.

As you probalby should.

It took some time last night, but I managed to convert one 12 page site
from frames to no-frames and use a template with includes to make it
simple, but I really hate the redrawing of the top/left sides when I
render the new body content (in the non-frame version).

Unless it is different on each page it should just cache and shouldn't
redraw anyway.

 

[Oli Filth]

Unless it is different on each page it should just cache and shouldn't
redraw anyway.

Do browsers cache individual parts of a page?

 

[Uncle Pirate]

Do browsers cache individual parts of a page?

The graphics are cached so although redrawn, they should be redrawn so
fast that you can't see it. The text is reloaded from the server but
being so small, again, it should redisplay fast enough not to notice.
Minor variations in markup could make it show though. I'm not sure, but
I think that with SSI, the included files might be cached making
things even faster.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

 

[Oli Filth]

I'm not sure, but I think that with SSI, the included files might be
cached making things even faster.

How can that be? The only system that knows that SSI is involved is the
server (hence the name "Server-Side Include"). The client and any
proxies or routers see only one complete HTML file, and so can't cache
the individual includes separately...

I guess the server might have the includes cached in RAM, making
production of the complete HTML file a few milliseconds faster, but this
is negligble against the transfer time to the client.

 

[jake]

I hate to ask this, as I don't want to get into any battles, but I'm
churning out several small static sites with a left/top/body frame set and
then changing the body frame for the content. all pages are just .htm
pages.

Not much out-of-the ordinary about that ;-)

I code by hand (notepad) or using Dreamweaver MX 2004, and also do .Net
and ASP, but for the simple ones I'm just using frames.

I keep hearing how frames are bad things

Lots of bogus and/or exaggerated arguments. (....sits back and waits for
someone to tell me it's impossible to bookmark a frameset page in
context ...)

- but I don't see any indication
that browsers are discontinuing support for frames,

So true.

or that they really
cause any problems,

Mostly true as well ...... mostly.

and they make life very simple.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the use they're put to, and how the author
codes them.

So, without getting into some zealotry war, if you're not using frames,
why not and what do you do instead?

Depends on whether or not you can use a server-based solution.

Thanks.

regards.

 

[Oli Filth]

Lots of bogus and/or exaggerated arguments. (....sits back and waits for
someone to tell me it's impossible to bookmark a frameset page in
context ...)

It is impossible, isn't it?

Unless each page is actually a separate frameset.

But this completely defeats the "advantages" of using frames, namely
that you don't have to copy the same code into umpteen HTML files, and
don't have to re-transmit (and re-render) the non-changing frames in a
framset.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Do browsers cache individual parts of a page?

No, but images are, and text is light enough to not cause an issue.

 

[Uncle Pirate]

It is impossible, isn't it?

Unless each page is actually a separate frameset.

But this completely defeats the "advantages" of using frames, namely
that you don't have to copy the same code into umpteen HTML files, and
don't have to re-transmit (and re-render) the non-changing frames in a
framset.

No, that is the advantage. Each frame is a separate html file with only
that content, menu, or whatever. They can be bookmarked if you look
through the source of the top frame which has the code to open the other
frames opening the individual files. Being laid out to fit in a frame,
however, it may not look to good in a large window; might have to shrink
the window down. I've learned they are "bad" though and don't use them.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

 

[Oli Filth]

No, that is the advantage. Each frame is a separate html file with only
that content, menu, or whatever.

No, what I'm saying is that you *lose* that advantage if you want to
make your pages bookmarkable, cos each "page" (as the user sees it)
requires a unique URL, which means that each "page" must actually be a
separate frameset, not just a separate frame.

Hence, it's no longer a static frameset, so it gets re-transmitted and
re-rendered every time the user clicks a link on your site. *And* each
of your static HTML files must now include the frameset code.

They can be bookmarked if you look through the source of the top frame
which has the code to open the other frames opening the individual files.

Firstly, who wants to bookmark a page by examining its source code?
Secondly, if you bookmark a link within a frame and then visit that
bookmark, you get the contents of that frame on their own, and not in
the context of the frameset (AFAIK).