Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Frames are bad - really?

Reply
Thread Tools

Frames are bad - really?

 
 
Stewart Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, WCB quothed

<snip>
>> The question is, has anybody figured out about what % are
>> not frames capable?

>
> As for browsers-in-use, I'd say less than 1%. All even halfway-modern
> graphical browsers anyone's ever heard of support frames.


Try telling Sagem that the web browser built into my mobile phone is a
decade out of date, and that it should be ignoring the fact that framed
layouts don't work well on such a small screen.

And notice also your own words: _graphical_ browsers. OK, so there's no
real reason browsers like Lynx and Braille devices can't be made to
support frames, but the concept doesn't make much sense to a speech
synthesiser....

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y?
PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
WCB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
Travis Newbury wrote:

> WCB wrote:
>>>"Professional Level" is in the eyes of the beholder. Look out for
>>>people that say the words "Never" or "Always" They are usually your
>>>fringe professionals that wear blinders to anything that does not
>>>completely agree with their thoughts.

>> Basically, I want to avoid stuff that that would make somebody hiring
>> rolls their eyes and think "Well no.. amateur"
>> And I want to avoid working hard to learn something I will some day
>> have to unlearn.

>
> Have a good solid understanding of HTML, CSS, client scripting, and some
> flavor of Server scripting. Everything else will fall into place. As
> far as specifics go, look at the kinds of sites representing the places
> you will someday want to work. What do they do?
>
>


Basically two general categories.

Catalogue sales, and content like news, or sales information.
Seems to be where the jobs and money are.

--
When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Auggie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005

"WCB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> Yes. Like I say though, I want to avoid learning something I will have to
> unlearn.
> That is always the hard way. "Geeze! If I had only known!"


There are legitimate uses for frames so you should atleast learn the basics
of how to use them.

If your use of frames is for a reason like "I don't want to have to edit a
hundred pages each time I add a new link to my navigation bar" then you
should be using server side includes instead of frames.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Stewart Gordon quothed

> Neredbojias wrote:
> > With neither quill nor qualm, WCB quothed

> <snip>
> >> The question is, has anybody figured out about what % are
> >> not frames capable?

> >
> > As for browsers-in-use, I'd say less than 1%. All even halfway-modern
> > graphical browsers anyone's ever heard of support frames.

>
> Try telling Sagem that the web browser built into my mobile phone is a
> decade out of date, and that it should be ignoring the fact that framed
> layouts don't work well on such a small screen.
>
> And notice also your own words: _graphical_ browsers. OK, so there's no
> real reason browsers like Lynx and Braille devices can't be made to
> support frames, but the concept doesn't make much sense to a speech
> synthesiser....


I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but if you view each
"possibility" of a frames page as a separate page, what's the
difference? That's the real problem with frames: the address/url, and
the only significant problem I can see.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stewart Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, Stewart Gordon quothed
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>> With neither quill nor qualm, WCB quothed

>> <snip>
>>>> The question is, has anybody figured out about what % are
>>>> not frames capable?
>>> As for browsers-in-use, I'd say less than 1%. All even halfway-modern
>>> graphical browsers anyone's ever heard of support frames.

>> Try telling Sagem that the web browser built into my mobile phone is a
>> decade out of date, and that it should be ignoring the fact that framed
>> layouts don't work well on such a small screen.
>>
>> And notice also your own words: _graphical_ browsers. OK, so there's no
>> real reason browsers like Lynx and Braille devices can't be made to
>> support frames, but the concept doesn't make much sense to a speech
>> synthesiser....

>
> I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but if you view each
> "possibility" of a frames page as a separate page, what's the
> difference? That's the real problem with frames: the address/url, and
> the only significant problem I can see.


Do you mean such UAs should just display one frame at a time and provide
a means of switching between them? That can be done in theory. But in
practice, framesets tend to be designed on the assumption that the
frames will be displayed together. This means that if they are shown
separately, the user will often need to take an extra step to follow a
link (and this is actually rather slow on some mobile phones). OTOH if
you provide an alternative navigation interface for users who can't view
the frames together, then these people'll find it easier.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y?
PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Stewart Gordon quothed

> Do you mean such UAs should just display one frame at a time and provide
> a means of switching between them?


No. Let me exemplify. Here's how I might do a frames system if I
wanted to be "proper".

Take a page with 3 frames:

1. The logo, same all the time.
2. Nav bar/column to call up the content, also the same all the time.
3. The content frame, receiving the results of the nav links.

When I click a link, it either:

a. Targets a whole new frames page with only the url of the 3rd frame
different, or -
b. Targets the same frames page with a query string loading the
correct content page into the 3rd frame via server-side scripting or
javascript.

This (these) ways, the address of the frames page is different for each
possible variation of content and no url-bookmarking anomalies would
exist.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stewart Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, Stewart Gordon quothed
>
>> Do you mean such UAs should just display one frame at a time and provide
>> a means of switching between them?

>
> No. Let me exemplify.


I don't see how what follows relates to this.

> Here's how I might do a frames system if I
> wanted to be "proper".
>
> Take a page with 3 frames:
>
> 1. The logo, same all the time.
> 2. Nav bar/column to call up the content, also the same all the time.
> 3. The content frame, receiving the results of the nav links.
>
> When I click a link, it either:
>
> a. Targets a whole new frames page with only the url of the 3rd frame
> different, or -
> b. Targets the same frames page with a query string loading the
> correct content page into the 3rd frame via server-side scripting or
> javascript.
>
> This (these) ways, the address of the frames page is different for each
> possible variation of content and no url-bookmarking anomalies would
> exist.


True. However, some of the benefits of frames are lost:

1. It becomes necessary to have several versions of the frameset page,
taking up more space on your server and in the user's cache.

2. The browser must fetch two html files each time a link is followed,
which can slow things down a bit.

3. It adds to the duplication of effort involved in creating an unframed
version as well for those who do browse using Lynx or a mobile phone.

4. It becomes tricky to link to fragments. Suppose you want to provide
a navigation frame with links to various parts of various pages. Unless
you create a frameset for each _fragment_ of a page, changing the whole
frameset at once won't achieve this. Unless you pass the fragment ID as
a query string in the frameset URL itself, and rely on either
JavaScript (which will always shut out and/or annoy some users) or
server-side scripting (which will add to your server load and prevent
people from browsing your site offline) to pass it on.

5. Some kinds of interactive sites can certainly benefit from being able
to switch some frames without resetting the state of others.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K- w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y?
PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Stewart Gordon quothed

> True. However, some of the benefits of frames are lost:
>
> 1. It becomes necessary to have several versions of the frameset page,
> taking up more space on your server and in the user's cache.


No. Using either javascript or some server-side solution, only 1 is
needed.

> 2. The browser must fetch two html files each time a link is followed,
> which can slow things down a bit.


True, but the frameset is only marginally inhibitive.

> 3. It adds to the duplication of effort involved in creating an unframed
> version as well for those who do browse using Lynx or a mobile phone.


Well, when I did it, it was for a strictly thumbs-'n-graphics page so I
didn't particularly care about the consequences to Lynx, and phones are
for talking on.

> 4. It becomes tricky to link to fragments. Suppose you want to provide
> a navigation frame with links to various parts of various pages. Unless
> you create a frameset for each _fragment_ of a page, changing the whole
> frameset at once won't achieve this. Unless you pass the fragment ID as
> a query string in the frameset URL itself, and rely on either
> JavaScript (which will always shut out and/or annoy some users) or
> server-side scripting (which will add to your server load and prevent
> people from browsing your site offline) to pass it on.


Uh huh, but as always, the page-crafter should be astute enough at his
craft to limit relative complications such as you describe. I could
screw up a non-frames html page just as easily.

> 5. Some kinds of interactive sites can certainly benefit from being able
> to switch some frames without resetting the state of others.


All I'm saying is that frames *can* be used correctly. They are not an
automatic pariah to html but do require some forethought of application
in order to provide a beneficial interface to the web.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
integer >= 1 == True and integer.0 == False is bad, bad, bad!!! rantingrick Python 44 07-13-2010 06:33 PM
Bad media, bad files or bad Nero? John Computer Information 23 01-08-2008 09:17 PM
ActiveX apologetic Larry Seltzer... "Sun paid for malicious ActiveX code, and Firefox is bad, bad bad baad. please use ActiveX, it's secure and nice!" (ok, the last part is irony on my part) fernando.cassia@gmail.com Java 0 04-16-2005 10:05 PM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 12 02-23-2005 03:28 AM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 0 02-19-2005 01:10 AM



Advertisments