04-16-2003, 09:06 PM
I have a site that can go both ways - I can control the strong image on top, and the links/structure on the bottom... I like the idea of frames because I can seperate my images with a little more control.
However, I can have difficulty in loading subpages - links, etc.
So I want to know what you guys think -- do you prefer frames or no frames? And, yes, I know that is a vague question, and highly dependable about the site/style... but what is your preference when you surf/build?
thanks to everyone who posts.
04-16-2003, 09:15 PM
most of us simply detest frames. and they usually look ugly too.:D
04-16-2003, 09:16 PM
i much prefer no frames, although there are situations where i could tolerate the use of frames... in things like shopping carts, etc...
but frames dont look so good to me. they can seem to make a site look like it is two / three sites welded together. search engines will not crawl your pages as you would like, and when they do, poeple click the link and get one page... completely out of context because it is designed to be in frames. there are several accessablity (spelling please?;)) issues with them too... although i dont know enough about that to be able to comment ;)
so... if you have a choice between frames / no frames go for no frames, if you dont have that choice, well... then you dont have that choice :)
hope that kinda helps... :thumbsup:
edit: grrr.... im being beaten to the posting an awful lot recently :rolleyes:
04-16-2003, 09:32 PM
To tell you the truth, frames scare me. For some reason I was never quite sure they would work right in all browsers. I don't know why I thought this, but it was always looming over me whenever I was about to start a new design.
Redhead covered a lot of the reasons that frames are bad. I agree with all of them. Most of the time you have 2-3 frames on a frames page. One for the navigation, one for content, and possibley one for a header image. Lot's of people like the idea of not having to reload everything just when a person wants some new content. The thing is, navigations are usually text based and thus don't take long to load at all (usually...). As for the header image, hopefully it will be cached and make extra loading times minimal.
I also never felt safe using frames with all the users out there with different screen resolutions. A header image frame can get seriously messed up, especailly when that certain frame is set to no scroll, if a user has a smaller screen res then usual.
All in all, me dislike frames. There are a few reasonable excuses to use them, but those are few and far between. I would imagine that it would be best to go against frames when designing sites now.
04-17-2003, 01:16 AM
I think I'm in agreement from what I've seen of my designs via web -- I first came to frames from my print design background and wanted to control everything... but that's not what the web is for, so I've adapted.
This seems to be a strong arguement on every side... but I do think the majority agree that frames, although a tool, are typically unneccessary and cause more problems then benefits.
I'll take all of your advice and go without the frames:)
Though, in the design world I've only seen one company use frames aggressively, and it don't look ugly:D
check out www.bmw.com
04-17-2003, 01:47 AM
I use frames and iframes on two of my sites.
Frames I use to center the main content for those with screens wider than my page and also for those who get my second pages in Fullscreen (suppose to be chromeless) on IE6 w\SP1.
Iframes I use for the scrolling menus and other content on the main pages.
I think frames are a bad thing for most - I've seen horrible uses - borders, too small, stupid use of SCROLL="no" on menus too tall to fit on my screen... :rolleyes: BUT, if used correctly (seamless), I see no problem in their use...
04-17-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Quiet Storm
I use frames and iframes on two of my sites.one thing to note... yours are an exception... they actaully look good ;)
04-17-2003, 08:52 AM
you can make frames where no-one will notice.
I am a little rusty but
it was like scroll.height = content+32 or something. I can look into it. It sets the frame to height of content, real cool.
04-17-2003, 12:05 PM
well, plain old frames are bad. but i think it's easier to make iframes acceptable - it's not too hard to make them look good either. get rid of the border and noone'll know.
04-17-2003, 12:46 PM
you can make frames where no-one will notice
Frames have obvious and well-known drawbacks; using them for what they are best at already is doubtfull, using them so nobody notices seems utterly pointless, unless I misunderstood.
I can't really think of a good reason, or even a bad one, to use frames invisibly and [i]not[/] make use of their strong points.
04-18-2003, 11:10 PM
U could make a layout without frames, but sometimes, when only a portion of the page changes, i guess it's better to keep the other portions that always remain the same in frames, since they wont be reloading all the time.
04-19-2003, 01:03 PM
i used to like frames but search engines hate them :P
we recently chnaged our site design to a 'no-frame' policy and have had a better response from the search engines. :)
04-19-2003, 04:51 PM
i use layers, now we could actually target a location to a layer. Layers are fun, useful... but not all browsers support em.. sigh.. check this site.
04-19-2003, 06:49 PM
I don't like frames either, they are just too annoying. iFrames are a different story though, I'd could see using them if it was appropriate.
Your best bet for layout is to use CSS. It is vastly superior to using tables, i.e. you can have the same content but a completely different layout just by changing out the stylesheet. And its just easier to setup your layout.