frames

[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

[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

[pduggan]

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>

[Jen Worden]

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

[stlewis]

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

[chuck]

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?

[pduggan]

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>

[pduggan]

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>

[BobInce]

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>

[chuck]

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