I was just wondering why all the big sites now don't use frames, it seems to me that this is stupid because the nav bar has to load everytime?
is there something i'm missing?
thanks
chuck
Printable View
I was just wondering why all the big sites now don't use frames, it seems to me that this is stupid because the nav bar has to load everytime?
is there something i'm missing?
thanks
chuck
I was just wondering why all the big sites now don't use frames, it seems to me that this is stupid because the nav bar has to load everytime?
is there something i'm missing?
thanks
chuck
Frames can obscure (as well as aid) navigation (check your address bar as you navigate a framed site), impede bookmarking and cause problems if you enter a poorly thought out framed site by the 'back door'.
For a thoroughly lucid resumé of the pros and cons, check out http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/, or take a look at my 'Petestack Frames Policy' for a more personal slant on things.
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
Add to that, difficulty with search engine placement and less than easy page printing and you have a pretty good case for not using frames.
My rule of thumb is if the target audience is web savvy ... go for it! Otherwise, stay clear.
cfn ... Jen
Jen Worden
Web Developer
www.meadoworks.com
If you go the frames route, there is JavaScript code you can add to each page so that backdoor entrants get the frameset loaded.
I think another plus for frames is when you have non-expert content editors - it is easier to add a new page if you have frames and are not using a professional Content Management System.
www.thelondonhouse.co.uk
thaks for all your replies,
from reading what you guys said i gather frames kind of suck, but if i get rid of frames, is there a way i can have a complicated nav bar that doesn't take long to load, or is somehow preloaded and cached?
Hi again Chuck
Don't think anybody actually said they suck (hell, I think we've all used them) - the general tone of the replies so far seems to be more to think carefully about how and why you use them, and to think through the implications.
But framing or not framing a nav bar really shouldn't make a lot of difference to load time - if it's icons or buttons you're thinking of, and they'll be largely the same for every page (as they would be for a framed nav bar), most folk will have them cached after the first page and the graphics won't need to load again. At which point some of the other issues probably become more important than pure file size...
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
If it's not graphics you're thinking of, surely it's going to have be a very complicated nav bar to start causing a problem with load times?
Peter</p>
Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>
I agree, the navigation shouldn't be normally be taking a lot of load time. Usual culprits are over-complicated HTML generated by automatic tools (simplify!) and complex DHTML menus (best to include from a linked .js file to reduce load times).</p>
There are a few cases where frames don't entirely suck. But not many. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]</p>
i use dreamweaver which does lots of unnecessary html, ie. lots of transparent gifs for over complicated tables, how much does unnecessary html slow down load times?
as you can see i'm just learning, thanks for everyones input.
Chuck
Chuck, dreamweaver can indeed add alot of unneeded code to your pages. But this does not necessarily have to be the case...if you avoid using layers and use tables to control the layout, you can make pages that do not add any of those anoying non-breaking spaces or transparent gifs. Each and every little character or space in an html file adds file size. If the page is using nonbreaking space (nbsp thingy), this adds 5 characters everythime it is used. And the transparent gif uses even more. Individually these things dont add alot, but when you have a whole wack of them, they can add 10 K or more to the page.
Hey Jen...you bring back memories. I remember quite a while back how you just loved using frames. Interesting how things change eh? I agree though...most everything that is done in frames, can be done by using tables. The only real advantage is having the navigational area on screen at all times.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you go the frames route, there is JavaScript code you can add to each page so that backdoor entrants get the frameset loaded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Simon, can you elaborate on this. I am currently doing a site that uses frames and this sounds like a good thing to add to each page. Do you think I should add this to the navbar pages too. Yikes...that is alot of pages that has to have this added. (another disadvantage is the number of pages you have to deal with).
Thanks,
Beth
Beth
I use a frame-based menu called Joust - it does lots of things people hate, but it does the trick for me!
If you have a look at any of the content pages of The London House - in the right-hand frame, view the source to see the code. I didn't write this - it comes with Joust, but you can probably adapt it.
Good luck.
www.thelondonhouse.co.uk
Thanks Simon. I remember you referring me to Joust before...did not realize that it did this too. Cool
Beth
You could try this:
function keepIn(parentHREF)) {
if (top.location.href == self.location.href) {
alert('Must load original frameset');
top.location.href = parentHREF;
}
}
from Jerry Bradenbaugh 'Javascript Application Cookbook' (O'Reilly)
I guess you call it from the OnLoad for each page.
www.thelondonhouse.co.uk
Hi Beth ...
I should probably tattoo "Know your audience" on my forehead!
I love the design capabilities of frames but for many business applications - particularly those that require specific URLs for reference or print - they just aren't viable.
But check out sites like k10k and immediately, you see their benefits.
re: keeping your framed pages within their original frame, you can use this at the top of the individual pages, inside the head tags.
Where "index.html" is your main frame.
cfn ... Jen
Jen Worden
Web Developer
www.meadoworks.com
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>chuck said : i use dreamweaver which does lots of unnecessary html, ie. lots of transparent gifs for over complicated tables, how much does unnecessary html slow down load times?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I use Dreamweaver too, Chuck but mainly for initial layout & mockups. For preview, I use Image Ready's slice'n'dice and finally, into Homesite to clean up the code. However, first setting preferences in Dreamweaver will save you from lots of extra editing.
Transparent gifs hit the server each time you change their size which is why some designers will have multiple transparent gifs 2x2, 2x10, 4x5 etc. (as opposed to dynamically generating them - actual clear.gif is 1x1 but coded as 2x5)
I try and use height & width table/tr/td cell parameters as much as possible, resorting to transparent gifs only in critical areas - keeping a specific cell width in Netscape, as an example.
Everything on your page will add to download time - images, extraneous HTML, text - and the general rule of thumb is to keep page size under 75kb all inclusive. If your visitor's are on T3 lines, that's probably overkill but if they're on 24.4k modems that might be overly generous.
As always ... (say it with me) "Know your audience." [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
cfn ... Jen
Jen Worden
Web Developer
www.meadoworks.com
Thanks heaps guys, that has been really helpful, and that little code for the frames backdoor thingy is just what i needed, could you point me in the right direction to get some info about Homesite and slice 'n dice?
Cheers