I just wonder what are the implications to use frames to build portal. I've
seen some sites that are quite fast with frames but I just wonder if there
are hidden "costs".
I've tried to use in the past and I run into a lot of problems when I worked
with environment where there were frame and no frames pages.
Please let me know if frames are OK to use for serious portal.
Each request will (may) deliver multiple pages so IIS would have to work
harder, but if you want frames and you think your site would be most
functional with them, adjust your hardware if it's not enough. Don't adjust
the functionality and design of your site around hardware, if at all
There is another thing to consider, and that is that some people will roll
their eyes and say that frames are "so 90s like hit counters" and not take
your site seriously. I personally think that there are times that frames
really make a lot of sense, but I wouldn't use them unless it was one of
those exact times.
Ray at work
"les" <bennettdotdill@no_spamburke.com> wrote in message
news:qvaWa.1335$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> I just wonder what are the implications to use frames to build portal.
> seen some sites that are quite fast with frames but I just wonder if there
> are hidden "costs".
> I've tried to use in the past and I run into a lot of problems when I
> with environment where there were frame and no frames pages.
> Please let me know if frames are OK to use for serious portal.
> Thank you,
There are *very few* situations where frames are in theory better than
singles pages. A common scenario cited it to provide a static header with
this but it's messy; besides I'd question whether you really need this
capability - do you really need this feature?
Frames go against the spirit of the web, as does using tables for layout,
but in both cases they are expedient and easy for novices to pick up. Very
few 'teach-yourself-html' sites show noobs how to use CSS and to validate
(X)HTML, so people learn bad habits that are hard to undo.
There are very good reasons not to use frames, for example accessibility
site, AFAIK, a single page structure using validaing HTML/CSS with SSI's
will beat the frameset equivalent. I think there is actually a small
performance hit in generating the frameset from individual frames (but I'm
not sure about this), whereas caching technology has improved so that SSI's
are very efficient structures.
On the other hand, CSS2 support is varied across browsers. Maybe in 18
months there will be a new CSS version with new browsers that accurately
support it... but until then we'll have problems convincing people to drop
I dont agree that frames are 'evil' but I would have to be at my wits end
before I used them in anger.
The original question concerned a 'serious portal'. If you look at what we
might consider 'serious' portals today, How many are using frames, and how
MSDN, Amazon, BBC, Yahoo, W3C, etc.... None use frames.
There are some that still do, eg MSDN Newsgroups, but they are fewer and
So... in summary...
Frames are NOT the future. If you cant achieve what you want to using CSS-P
& SSI, then consider changing your design, but ultimately, you wont get shot
for using frames!
Just my £0.02.
PS. If you want a laugh, go and ask this question in
comp.infosystems.www.htm or stylesheets. Sit back and watch the feathers