Frames To Use or not to Use

	Home Register Search Help Login

Sponsors

Shopping Cart Software
Ecommerce software integrated into Frontpage, Dreamweaver and Golive templates. No monthly fees and available in ASP and PHP versions.

Website Templates
We also have a wide selection of Dreamweaver, Expression Web and Frontpage templates as well as webmaster tools and CSS layouts.

Frontpage website templates
Creative Website Templates for FrontPage, Dreamweaver, Flash, SwishMax

Search Forums

Recent Posts

Todays Posts
Most Active posts
Posts since last visit
My Recent Posts
Mark posts read

Frames To Use or not to Use

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> Web Development >> General Web Development >> Frames To Use or not to Use

Page: [1]


briesmith Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline	Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/6/2003 11:26:24 Hello Everyone Frames used to be, and possibly still are, deprecated and strong views were held about their sinfulness. Is this still the case? It seems so simple to use frames to divide up a screen that it would be sinful not to use them; in productivity terms. If they are still frowned upon, what is the alternative? A large number of websites conform to the " top of the page graphic, dynamic menu row middle window and scrollable information window" model. This lends itself to the frames approach very well. Is CSS the answer?


bobby Posts: 11394 Joined: 8/15/1969 From: Seattle WA USA Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/6/2003 12:32:28 Frames are still " frowned upon" They may appear easier to use, but in reality they can be a real pain... first you have to work extra hard to optimize a framed page for search engines. Also, you have to build a " non-frames" page anyway if you want visitors in older browsers to be able to visit your site... Familiarize yourself with Includes, they take the place of frames in terms of simplicity... build a " header" for your page, and simply include it on all pages... CSS is great, but not necessarily to take the place of frames. _____________________________ If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? (in reply to briesmith)


ApexWeb Posts: 139 Joined: 6/27/2003 From: Flower Mound, Texas Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/7/2003 6:07:25 I' m not disagreeing with Bobby, but I' ll add that: The % of users with browsers unable to use frames is VERY low these days. Based on stats in TheCounter.com, users of early versions of MSIE and Netscape only amount to 1 out of 3389 of all visitors. (That doesn' t include WebTV users.) That said, frames are " deprecated" (considered bad). Here' s a nice summary of some of the other problems with frames. _____________________________ Stephen Walker Apex Web Solutions (in reply to briesmith)


briesmith Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/8/2003 16:17:02 Hello Thanks for the input. Some of the referenced material was written in the late ' 90s when a lot of browsers didn' t " do" frames very well. Dr Nielsen' s polemic dates from about that time as well and I notice that in his more recent stuff he doesn' t mention frames as one of his big no noes. One of the big objections to frames is the difficulty search engine spiders have cataloguing their underlying content. Is it reasonable to say that relying on search engines to " find" your website is not very businesslike and a paid subscription is the way forward? Also we could expect search engine designers to have got to grips with frames by now? This leaves the problems of printing and bookmarking I guess. Many pages have a " printer friendly" button now as screens (tft, WAP, TV, PDA etc) and the printed page diverge more and more. And bookmarking could be addressed by a similar " bookmarking friendly" button? The point about accurate use of target to ensure pages appear in the right frame is an important objection and gettig it right carries a real development time overhead. Refreshing the entire page - which using includes implies - is also inefficient, even allowing for cacheing. I' m still unsure about frames... (in reply to briesmith)


gorilla Posts: 2974 From: Denmark Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/8/2003 18:04:45 I' ve never yet seen a site that really needed frames. IMO the usability issues far outweigh any disadvantages - amongst which I include the inefficiencies of SSI. Such inefficiencies are (again IMO) more a matter of perception than real. It' s not, Deo gratias like the " old days" when I had to worry managing the exact contents of each memory register. My experience has always been that users dislike them and invariably respond favourably when they are replaced by SSI. You might also like to bear in mind that some users using frames capable browsers surf with that capacity turned off. IMO user experience should always be the prime criterion. August 8th 2003 < Message edited by gorilla -- 8/8/2003 6:09:05 PM > _____________________________ Mh�ircaish Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned . May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower (in reply to briesmith)


briesmith Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/9/2003 6:20:56 Hello G Thanks for your input. First off, excuse my ignorance but what is/are SSI? On a more general point I think we need to define the type of website we are talking about. TB-L and others put their weight behind the development of the internet so that authors could more easily publish their largely unstructured documents and other cataloguers/assemblers could collect those documents into archives. Finding the right page (search engines) and being able to go back (bookmarking) to it was crucial in that environment as was being able to print abstracts. But if we look at other web types, shopping or insurance/holiday/real estate administration webs, for instance, bookmarking a page within the web is not only rarely allowed (you have to sign-in and go through the page hierarchy to get anywhere) but pointless as the pages are dynamically generated and have no permanent existence. Printing is normally provided as a specific service on appropriate pages ("click here to print your receipt" etc). I think the objective T B-L had in mind is no longer the dominant purpose of the web with the greatest percentage of sites visited being generated on the fly by scripts or ASP. I may be wrong here and I know that bloggers rely on searchability and bookmarking for usability. But for the rest of the web, I don't know. I would like to avoid frames because of the potential for linking errors and if SSI or some other technology would allow me to do this I would be very pleased to learn about it. (in reply to briesmith)

gorilla

Posts: 2974
From: Denmark
Status: offline

RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/9/2003 6:56:53

quote:

ORIGINAL: briesmith

Hello G

Thanks for your input.

First off, excuse my ignorance but what is/are SSI?

Well Grinning Greying Gorillic Greetings to you too :-)

SSI = Server Side Includes. To my mind the best ever tutorial on them is the one at www.bignosebird.com - I'd toddle along there if I were you :-) - I'm not going to even attempt to explain 'em. Why waste my effort and your time when someone else has already done the perfect job?

quote:

On a more general point I think we need to define the type of website we are talking about. TB-L and others put their weight behind the development of the internet so that authors could more easily publish their largely unstructured documents and other cataloguers/assemblers could collect those documents into archives. Finding the right page (search engines) and being able to go back (bookmarking) to it was crucial in that environment as was being able to print abstracts.

But if we look at other web types, shopping or insurance/holiday/real estate administration webs, for instance, bookmarking a page within the web is not only rarely allowed (you have to sign-in and go through the page hierarchy to get anywhere) but pointless as the pages are dynamically generated and have no permanent existence. Printing is normally provided as a specific service on appropriate pages ("click here to print your receipt" etc).

I think the objective T B-L had in mind is no longer the dominant purpose of the web with the greatest percentage of sites visited being generated on the fly by scripts or ASP. I may be wrong here and I know that bloggers rely on searchability and bookmarking for usability. But for the rest of the web, I don't know.

LOL yes I'm well aware of all of that and believe me I concur with the points made above. That being said not all is lost. Heavy, and correct, use of css not only increases a site's "search engine friendliness" it also increases it's usability. In an ideal world a pure css layout is the way to go. The world being less than ideal it may be necessary to use tables for some layouts. Both the decision and consequences thereof are up to the individual site developer.

quote:

I would like to avoid frames because of the potential for linking errors and if SSI or some other technology would allow me to do this I would be very pleased to learn about it.

SSI definitely will let you do it. It also has the advantage of giving you one centralised location for sitewide changes, thereby ensuring consistentcy. That and css are the ideal combination for lazy primates such as myself.

The outfront tutorials on this topic are really rather good. My own choice however is always to go for "real" ssi rather than frontpage includes. This is more fro flexibility than anything else. There's nothing wrong with frontpage includes per se it's simply that I always go for a standard solution when faced with a choice between a standard solution and a proprietary one.

Two tips:

1: Validate validate validate and then validate again.

2. Save your includes as .txt files and ensure that your hosting company sets the server to parse .txt files.

I hope this helps a little.

August 9th 2003

< Message edited by gorilla -- 8/9/2003 7:24:54 AM >

_____________________________

Mh�ircaish

Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned

.

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to briesmith)


gorilla Posts: 2974 From: Denmark Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/9/2003 7:12:56 quote: It seems so simple to use frames to divide up a screen that it would be sinful not to use them; in productivity terms. I felt it worth addressing this separately. There is nothing to stop you dividing a screen in as many ways as you want. The issue here is browser support. I do not suscribe to the theory that a site must appear identical in Netscape 4.78 and Opera7.1. One needs to be aware of the various browsers' limitations and then code a site in such a way that it will degrade gracefully. IOW the visitor will see a well structured page irrepsective of the browser they are using. How I do this is to design for other browsers first and then "tweak" for internet explorer. Nearly everybody does it the other way round which explains why I code my sites in appreciably less time, and with significanlty fewer ergs expended than they do. August 9th 2003 MPS < Message edited by gorilla -- 8/9/2003 7:18:32 AM > _____________________________ Mh�ircaish Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned . May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower (in reply to briesmith)


Katerina Posts: 18 Joined: 8/9/2003 Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/9/2003 19:36:31 I really like using shared borders. (in reply to briesmith)

ApexWeb

Posts: 139
Joined: 6/27/2003
From: Flower Mound, Texas
Status: offline

RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/9/2003 22:07:57

quote:

I do not suscribe to the theory that a site must appear identical in Netscape 4.78 and Opera7.1.

This is often what the client asks for, but rarely if ever what the client actually gets. Even so, you can learn some tricks along the way to make your code look basically the same in multiple browsers.

quote:

One needs to be aware of the various browsers' limitations and then code a site in such a way that it will degrade gracefully.

Wise, but better to get it to look right, if possible.

quote:

How I do this is to design for other browsers first and then " tweak" for internet explorer. Nearly everybody does it the other way round which explains why I code my sites in appreciably less time, and with significanlty fewer ergs expended than they do.

Pardon me, G, but call me skeptical. (How is it that you know your coding is appreciably faster?)

Once you notice the ways that MSIE and other browsers differ, you just figure out how to make it work right in the major browsers. Eventually it becomes a habit. I wouldn' t call that coding for any one browser. You' re not coding for MSIE or Netscape/Mozilla or Opera or WebTV or whatever -- you' re coding for as many browsers as your client' s customers are going to use. You' re coding good HTML, hopefully, which is made to work in any browser that renders HTML well.

Now, if you use FrontPage without knowing HTML, or fixing the HTML as you go, then (yes) you are coding for MSIE. Or, rather, you are allowing FrontPage to purposely create bad HTML that doesn' t work right in all major browsers. If this is what G is getting at, then I would agree that such a practice is regrettable. I' d even call it a mistake if the author knows HTML or can afford to hire someone who knows it.

< Message edited by ApexWeb -- 8/9/2003 9:10:56 PM >

_____________________________

Stephen Walker
Apex Web Solutions

(in reply to briesmith)


ApexWeb Posts: 139 Joined: 6/27/2003 From: Flower Mound, Texas Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/9/2003 23:07:37 This is unrelated, but I MUST say many, many thanks to Gorilla for her/his/its (?) contribution in this FPWebMaster thread. I have very much wanted to find old versions of MSIE, and now I can. _____________________________ Stephen Walker Apex Web Solutions (in reply to ApexWeb)

gorilla

Posts: 2974
From: Denmark
Status: offline

RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/10/2003 11:30:32

Hello Steven,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ApexWeb

quote:

I do not suscribe to the theory that a site must appear identical in Netscape 4.78 and Opera7.1.

quote:

This is often what the client asks for, but rarely if ever what the client actually gets. Even so, you can learn some tricks along the way to make your code look basically the same in multiple browsers.

I am well aware of cross browser compatability issues and how to address them. I am also aware of how to use the various tricks that make a site look identical irrespective of the UA used (or at least close to it.) The problem with that approach IMO is that one either resorts to browser sniffing and serving up different versions as required or one has to resort to " the bag of tricks

" leading to very bloated and frquently seriously noncompliant code.

quote:

One needs to be aware of the various browsers' limitations and then code a site in such a way that it will degrade gracefully.

quote:

Wise, but better to get it to look right, if possible.

Which is of course the precise point I was making.

quote:

How I do this is to design for other browsers first and then " tweak" for internet explorer. Nearly everybody does it the other way round which explains why I code my sites in appreciably less time, and with significanlty fewer ergs expended than they do.

quote:

Pardon me, G, but call me skeptical. (How is it that you know your coding is appreciably faster?)

I' ve highlighted the point I was making. It takes me a lot less time to code and effort the site using my methods than to do it the " standard" or IE-centric way. A lot less time debugging too.

quote:

Once you notice the ways that MSIE and other browsers differ, you just figure out how to make it work right in the major browsers. Eventually it becomes a habit. I wouldn' t call that coding for any one browser. You' re not coding for MSIE or Netscape/Mozilla or Opera or WebTV or whatever -- you' re coding for as many browsers as your client' s customers are going to use.

Now the last sentence in that " You' re coding good HTML, hopefully, which is made to work in any browser that renders HTML well." is the key point if by " good HTML" you mean w3c compliant code. I validate constantly. I' m something of an " evangelist" about validation because the fact is, as I' m sure you' re well aware, that browser manufacturers, even Microsoft, are moving to ever closer compliance with W3C standards. " Even Microsoft" is not to sneer at Microsoft, they have made huge strides in this direction and are investing significant amounts of effort and money to to go further.

quote:

Now, if you use FrontPage without knowing HTML, or fixing the HTML as you go, then (yes) you are coding for MSIE. Or, rather, you are allowing FrontPage to purposely create bad HTML that doesn' t work right in all major browsers. If this is what G is getting at, then I would agree that such a practice is regrettable. I' d even call it a mistake if the author knows HTML or can afford to hire someone who knows it.

I couldn' t agree more. Frontpage has also improved markedly in recent versions. I' m sure you recall the days of it occasionally " forgetting" to for example, close the <body> tag. I don' t think that anyone purposely creates " bad" HTML but if they do I wouldn' t call it a mistake, I' d call grossly unprofessional.

On a somewhat related issue I fail to understand why many so-called " professionals" sneer at Frontpage and those who use it. It' s a tool, nothing more, and nothing less, in the right hands it can be used to produce stunningly good results, and in the wrong hands a cobbled together mess. That is equally true of notepad.exe a tool I use a lot when working on windows boxes, or emacs a tool I use lot with working on Unix boxen.

It is the person using the tool who is responsible for the results produced. Not the tool itself. Frontpage IMO is a wonderful tool that has allowed a lot of people who otherwise would not have dreamed of coding their own sites to do so. IMO this is laudable. Yes sometimes the results have been, shall we say " funny looking?

" So what! If they want to progress further the means are at hand. The wonderful thing is that so many do. Witness the success of this place.

August 10th 2003.

_____________________________

Mh�ircaish

Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned

.

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to ApexWeb)


gorilla Posts: 2974 From: Denmark Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/10/2003 11:34:50 quote: ORIGINAL: ApexWeb This is unrelated, but I MUST say many, many thanks to Gorilla for her/his/its (?) contribution in this FPWebMaster thread. I have very much wanted to find old versions of MSIE, and now I can. His or hers depending on which spokesgorilla is answering. Freya is female. YOu call a gorilla " it" at your own risk. I suggest that you practice risk avoidance on this one. The alternative is either massive expenditures on propitiatory bananas or learning how to avoid sudden showers of high velocity sharp pointy sticks _____________________________ Mh�ircaish Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned . May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower (in reply to ApexWeb)


gorilla Posts: 2974 From: Denmark Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/10/2003 11:39:15 quote: ORIGINAL: Katerina I really like using shared borders. I can well understand that - They' re convenient and relatively easy to use. But I wouldn' t rely on them if I were you because: 1. They present serious problems from an accessability standpoint. 2. They' re very rigid. They' re a tool like any other, and IMO had/have a big part in the success of Frontpage. But as I say I wouldn' t rely on them. Once you start using SSI, especially if you use SSI in conjunction with CSS I promise you you' ll be amazed at how quickly and easily you' ll get your sites to sparkle. _____________________________ Mh�ircaish Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned . May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower (in reply to Katerina)


Donkey Posts: 3869 Joined: 11/13/2001 From: Blackfield United Kingdom Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/12/2003 8:18:32 I like frames for navigation, is there another way of having your major nav links all available on screen with no scrolling? Personally, and please bear in mind I am not a professional designer so my opinions are from the viewpoint of a site user, I hate sites where the links are in the top left position. They disappear on long pages so you have to scroll back just to see what links are available. This is so frustrating and IMHO makes the site more difficult to use. No one who is "anti frames" ever seems to take this into consideration. Surely it is important that the site user is able to navigate easily? BTW if there is another way of achieving the effect of a left side navigation frame without using frames please let us know. _____________________________ I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't. Samuel Clemens (in reply to briesmith)


Gil Posts: 7533 From: North Carolina, USA Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/12/2003 10:06:57 quote: No one who is "anti frames"ever seems to take this into consideration. Surely it is important that the site user is able to navigate easily? Actually, I find those "floating" menus extremely annoying and will leave a site that uses them at once. Savy developers will add "TOP" bookmarks to very long pages to assist the user in returning to the top of the page. _____________________________ Gil Harvey, 1947-2004 (in reply to Donkey)


Donkey Posts: 3869 Joined: 11/13/2001 From: Blackfield United Kingdom Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/12/2003 10:46:35 quote: Actually, I find those "floating"menus extremely annoying and will leave a site that uses them at once. Savy developers will add "TOP"bookmarks to very long pages to assist the user in returning to the top of the page. I understand your point Gil, but getting back to the navigation is not the problem, it's that because the navigation options are not visible at all times the user forgets which options are available, and has to scroll back to check (if he/she can be bothered). I still think that having the navigation in view at all times makes life easier for the users. I realise that I'm in a very small minority within these forums, but I think the situation would be very different in the "outside world" of non technical users. I wonder if anyone has researched this properly testing with "average" users? _____________________________ I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't. Samuel Clemens (in reply to briesmith)


gorilla Posts: 2974 From: Denmark Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/12/2003 16:32:52 quote: ORIGINAL: Donkey quote: Actually, I find those "floating"menus extremely annoying and will leave a site that uses them at once. Savy developers will add "TOP"bookmarks to very long pages to assist the user in returning to the top of the page. I understand your point Gil, but getting back to the navigation is not the problem, it's that because the navigation options are not visible at all times the user forgets which options are available, and has to scroll back to check (if he/she can be bothered). I still think that having the navigation in view at all times makes life easier for the users. I realise that I'm in a very small minority within these forums, but I think the situation would be very different in the "outside world"of non technical users. I wonder if anyone has researched this properly testing with "average"users? Yes repeatedly. If we are speaking purely in terms of frames then from a usability point of view they're a nightmare. It's no accident that they're still top of the "for goodness sake don't do that"lists. For example Nielsen. I've never yet had a user who didn't say Oh thank goodness once I switched their stuff from framed to nonframed. I know what your saying but it is so easy to use a mixture of css and ssi to emulate frames that there's really no justification for using them. As to "bouncey" or "floatey" menus. I don't completely agree with gil. As long as they don't distract and much much much more importantly don't change position. IE they "float" in the one dedicated area of the viewport then I don't mind 'em too much. What drives me distraction is floating menus that float over the content..... August 12th 2003 < Message edited by gorilla -- 8/12/2003 4:36:26 PM > _____________________________ Mh�ircaish Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned . May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower (in reply to Donkey)


Donkey Posts: 3869 Joined: 11/13/2001 From: Blackfield United Kingdom Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/12/2003 19:50:13 quote: As to "bouncey"or "floatey"menus. I don't completely agree with gil. As long as they don't distract and much much much more importantly don't change position. IE they "float"in the one dedicated area of the viewport then I don't mind 'em too much. What drives me distraction is floating menus that float over the content..... I agree with you especially on the last point, but I don't think I am getting my point across very well here. From the point of usability I don't really care if the page is made up from frames or not. All I am arguing is that the basic navigation should be static on the page (not floating) whilst the other pages appear either alongside or underneath it, and when you scroll the page the navigation stays in view. 2 questions; 1) How is this a problem when it makes navigation easier? 2) Can the effect be duplicated without using frames? If so could you point me towards a tutorial. Sorry if I appear a trifle argumentative, as I said before I am not an expert and ultimately I must bow to the superior knowledge of the rest of you who are obviously far more experienced than I. It's just a bit difficult when everyone is telling you that something that appears (to me) to make sites work better is so wrong. _____________________________ I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't. Samuel Clemens (in reply to briesmith)


wattle Posts: 254 Joined: 3/31/2003 From: Australia Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/12/2003 20:02:22 quote: I've never yet had a user who didn't say Oh thank goodness once I switched their stuff from framed to nonframed. I recently had the opposite experience Have been gradually changing our Intranet from frames to includes. Last week I altered a fairly heavily used section to includes and the emails started rolling in from users complaining they had to click 'top'or scroll up or down to get to the navigation - I was even cornered in the lunchroom . It was quite startling as no-one, up until then, had even noticed that I'd been changing the site and this only involved one mouse click to get to the navigation. The only thing I can put it down to is the fact this section of the site is link heavy and has a few forms to fill in etc, and when users have to do a fair bit of work in a limited time even one click is a click too many for them. It's also part of the site that is used by most people daily and the minor change probably gave them a fright . I ended up going back to frames and now all is calm. Next time I alter something like this I'll send out an email the day before - in hindsight I should have done this in the first place. < Message edited by wattle -- 8/13/2003 10:04:33 AM > _____________________________ ~ Wattle ~ Anyone who says that they can contemplate quantum mechanics without becoming dizzy has not understood the concept in the least. Niels Bohr (in reply to gorilla)

Gil

Posts: 7533
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline

RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/12/2003 20:43:19

quote:

All I am arguing is that the basic navigation should be static on the page (not floating)

Static navigation is plain old HTML - The "floating" menus are those that follow you up and down the page.

quote:

1) How is this a problem when it makes navigation easier?

It's annoying and distracting - IMHO
By distracting, I mean it detracts from the content of the site.

quote:

2) Can the effect be duplicated without using frames?

Not that I am aware of...

A solution is to plan the page so it is not so long as to cause a problem. One of the most common mistake (IMO) is pages that should be broken into two, three or more pages for readability.

_____________________________

Gil Harvey, 1947-2004

(in reply to Donkey)

Donkey

Posts: 3869
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: Blackfield United Kingdom
Status: offline

RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/13/2003 5:57:34

quote:

I recently had the opposite experience Have been gradually changing our Intranet from frames to includes. Last week I altered a fairly heavily used section to includes and the emails started rolling in from users complaining they had to click 'top' or scroll up or down to get to the navigation - I was even cornered in the lunchroom . It was quite startling as no-one, up until then, had even noticed that I'd been changing the site and this only involved one mouse click to get to the navigation.

The only thing I can put it down to is the fact this section of the site is link heavy and has a few forms to fill in etc, and when users have to do a fair bit of work in a limited time even one click is a click too many for them. It's also part of the site that is used by most people daily and the minor change probably gave them a fright . I ended up going back to frames and now all is calm.

At last some agreement with my basic point. Wattle's users want the navigation permanently available on-screen because it's far easier to use! IMHO even a single click back to get to the navigation is a waste of my time.

I won't prolong the argument further because I am just trying to find ways of improving my company's current site which is frames based. (Incidentally we get lots of compliments from customers on how easy our site is to use). I would like to move away from frames for all the reasons you have all given, and I was hoping that there was another way to achieve the effect.

I think Gil's got the answer.

quote:

A solution is to plan the page so it is not so long as to cause a problem.

So if I make each page small enough so that no/minimal vertical scrolling is required and put the navigation in the same position on each page it will give the same effect. Sounds OK to me - the old KISS principle - Keep It Simple Stupid!, I'll give it a try.

Thanks for the help.

Peter

_____________________________

I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't.
Samuel Clemens

(in reply to briesmith)


briesmith Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/13/2003 6:13:24 Hello Everybody We don't seem to be making much progress with this topic. Replies seem to be focussed on sort of semi-religious or didactic objections rather than practical reasons as to why frames are not good. Quoting thoughts from the '90s is probably not that to the point either. I must admit to some surprise at the number of votes for pemanently visible left hand navigation bars. I've always thought these the least efficient means of providing navigation because of the significant amount of sceen space they waste and their overall distracting effect. I can't believe a book or magazine that published the contents on every page would be very usable or find many readers. One or two respondents have touched on the issue of website type - one subscriber referred to an intranet - and I still think the answer lies somewhere in consideration of "what sort of website is it" we're designing. Textual websites consisting of, possibly long, articles published for reference purposes or as items of record are probably suited to left hand navigation bars; if for no other reason than they can make the webpages more visually interesting. Information websites - supplier locators, train times, street finders etc - need to understand how their customers use them and what their customers are looking for and make sure their navigation system is sympathetic to those aims. Perceived system response time might be a vital "must have" here so frames could play a part in saving screen refreshes. It is interesting to note the number of sites of this type that use permanent left hand frames to advertise the content and faciltities of their site as opposed to straightforward navigation. (Although these two purposes clearly overlap). Transactional websites - for buying and selling stuff - need to be to the point and reserve as much screen space as possible for "selling". I believe frames are essential to the effective design of these sort of sites. Keeping an on-screen record or list of things bought and sold so far, for example, can only really be done in a frame if refreshes and client-server round-trips are to be minimised. Hybrid websites need to select a consistent method that encompasses all their visitors' needs. Portals always seem to over egg the pudding cramming more information that can be usefully taken in onto their page. Does anyone find MSN anything other than a totally confusing mess for instance? Intra page navigation is not really relevant here and "Back to Top" links are as good a way as any of providing this although an "onclick; if right click go to top;" function might work just as well and avoid the need for breaking the page flow. This would require some visitor training so might not be a good idea. I would still be interested in hearing of a practical way of avoiding frames; not so much a "why" as a "how". Perhaps we could submit some URLs showing the good and bad sides of frames, I'll certainly keep a lookout and post any I find. (in reply to briesmith)

Donkey

Posts: 3869
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: Blackfield United Kingdom
Status: offline

RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/13/2003 7:11:12

Sorry but I couldn't resist a reply.

quote:

I must admit to some surprise at the number of votes for pemanently visible left hand navigation bars. I've always thought these the least efficient means of providing navigation because of the significant amount of sceen space they waste and their overall distracting effect. I can't believe a book or magazine that published the contents on every page would be very usable or find many readers.

I strongly disagree that they are distracting, and it's only like having the contents of a book on every page if you list all your navigation. IMO only the main navigation should be shown. A lot of magazines and newspapers have a small box on each page listing page numbers of other sections e.g. sports p59, TVguide p.30 etc. It makes life easier for the reader.

I would say that having a page without the main navigation always visible is like producing a TV remote control with only one button which you have to press to find out what other controls are available.

quote:

Perhaps we could submit some URLs showing the good and bad sides of frames,

I submit the following which is my company's site, because it works. www.euroflex.co.uk I am not claiming that the design or technical side of the site is particularly good, just that the navigation works fine. I am aware that there are a great number of things I can do to improve the site and I am currently planning a total rebuild using CSS for positioning instead of tables.

_____________________________

I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't.
Samuel Clemens

(in reply to briesmith)


briesmith Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/13/2003 14:36:13 Hello Donkey Sorry; I didn't mean to be fascist about lh navigation (or RH) frames and I didn't mean to imply that on-screen navigation shouldn't be provided. I just think that we all read downwards and hate scrolling left to right to left so a horizontal menu bar - always visible - with drop downs/push ups for expansion is the optimum solution. This accords with the "old" glass teletype/CICS 3270 type layouts where the ring menus were always at the top of the screen. Knowing IBM and the like I'm sure they did some research into where the menus should go for best effect... (in reply to briesmith)

Spooky

Posts: 26599
Joined: 11/11/1998
From: Middle Earth
Status: offline

RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/13/2003 16:36:22

quote:

Knowing IBM and the like I'm sure they did some research into where the menus should go for best effect

I would suggest that the available information dictating usability has expanded a million fold since those days ;-)

_____________________________

If you arent part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

��k�

Database / DRW help Check out the Tutorials for Frontpage Databases

Forum FAQ' s

Developers Edition Spooky Login User Registration and Management tool

Personalized Frontpage Hosting

(in reply to briesmith)


Charles W Davis Posts: 1725 Joined: 3/7/2002 From: Henderson Nevada USA Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/13/2003 18:17:30 Brian, Having been one of the development managers on the CICS program product during its early years (1970 - 1976), I can attest that the research amounted to one programmer asking a few others in the office. Yes, a lot of other developers and quality assurance folks had comments. quote: teletype/CICS 3270 type layouts where the ring menus were always at the top of the screen. Knowing IBM and the like I'm sure they did some research into where the menus should go for best effect... _____________________________ Enjoy! It' s your endeavor! http://www.anthemwebs.com (in reply to briesmith)


Spooky Posts: 26599 Joined: 11/11/1998 From: Middle Earth Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/13/2003 18:24:37 Ahh the endless budget of big blue ..... (in reply to briesmith)


briesmith Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/15/2003 4:58:42 Hello Chuck You're ruined all my illusions! There was I thinking that IBM spent millions researching why CICS was so crap when it all depended, apparently, on whether the programmer involved asked the right or the wrong person. Well I'm blowed! There is an interesting side issue here for all the Billy Boy haters. Anybody who worked on CICS, IMS or any of the other SNA family products finds MS stuff a comparative joy and almost resilient in comparison. Now if they can just fix the security issues... I am now guilty of forum creep where the original subject or issue gets lost as successive posts meander away from the topic; we must be strong and get back to frames. (in reply to briesmith)


gorilla Posts: 2974 From: Denmark Status: offline	RE: Frames To Use or not to Use - 8/16/2003 3:15:47 August 16th 2003 quote: ORIGINAL: briesmith I am now guilty of forum creep where the original subject or issue gets lost as successive posts meander away from the topic; we must be strong and get back to frames. Can't wait to see your avatar as "forum creep" Do you really feel your UI comparison holds water? I also am from a mainframe background and feel strongly that you're not exactly comparing like with like. More on frames this w'end if the nurses let me out of bed. Kind regards _____________________________ Mh�ircaish Signature self-censored to protect the sensibilities of the thin-skinned . May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. � Dwight D. Eisenhower (in reply to briesmith)

Page: [1]

All Forums >> Web Development >> General Web Development >> Frames To Use or not to Use

Page: [1]

Jump to: 1

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts