|
| |
|
|
Nib
Posts: 127 Joined: 9/28/2003 Status: offline
|
why tables, not frames? - 5/26/2004 23:23:18
im sure this has been covered ad nauseum, but my searches for "dont use frames" arent really satisfying me. everyone seems to push for using tables instead. i should preface this by saying im not a web designer, and am merely toying with the idea of making a small site with very little content. i can do a basic page by hand in html, and am learning DW atm. so my thinking was having a left and top frame, and one frame for the main content. all menu links in the left frame would target the main frame page and open them there. this way i could set up all my main content pages using a very basic html style without having to duplicate the table rows and columns and all that hooplah. any and all info in the main page would either be some sort of news, or links to other pages, which would then be opened in a new window. now since my coding skill is not the best, i thought it would be easiest to make it look "pretty" using graphics, which is why i dont want the menu or header to have to reload each time a link is clicked. and anything in the main area would have little to zero graphic content. so i guess i want someone to convince me why im not the perfect candidate for frames. or how this could be done using tables without reloading the left and top tables. afaik, you cant name a table and target it, can you? thx for any info or links
|
|
|
|
Nib
Posts: 127 Joined: 9/28/2003 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 5/27/2004 3:49:45
Sold!! that's the "why" i was looking for. thanks.
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7123 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 5/27/2004 10:07:33
quote:
without having to duplicate the table rows and columns and all that hooplah. any and all info in the main page would either be some sort of news, or links to other pages, which would then be opened in a new window. If you are hand coding, once you create the first page, you dont have to "duplicate all..the hoopla" - you just do save as with the next page name and simply change the content,,,yes you do have to update the links but that isnt bad. If you plan the first page knowing all of the pages you will build, then you can have them all on the nav strucutre before you save as. imo, dont use frames
_____________________________
Dan
|
|
|
|
tcrawford
Posts: 26 From: Marietta GA USA Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/1/2004 12:37:40
If you build the content for the top and the side as separate pages, you can use include pages. This way, you can make any changes to the include page and all your others are updated. That's how I do most of my templating (to coin a phrase) Tom http://www.pviproductions.com
|
|
|
|
JSpilio
Posts: 76 Joined: 6/27/2002 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/1/2004 12:40:55
javascript also works well if your site doesn't support FP extensions or ASP. I've done several sites references to an external javascript that contained the link information.
_____________________________
" Hard Work Beats Talent When Talent Doesn' t Work Hard..."
|
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 6:29:59
We're just about finishing the development of a large ASP driven website which is totally dependent on frames. At the outset the developers were riven by argument about frames; whether or not to use them. The pro-frames camp won the day and we went ahead with a frames based design. The advantages are clear in terms of performance, screen stability and page management. CSS and/or tables remain available without restriction and menuing is, if anything, facilitated. Relying on ASP and supporting classes means that heavy processing loads are placed on the server and significant quantities of code are sent to the clients. Reducing the amount of screen area that changes with each page access helps to mitigate the impact of these two factors. Additionally, limiting the amount of screen area that changes also helps with readability. Frames allow headline graphics and menus to remain on screen without "flickering" or, on slower systems, slowly refreshing each time a page is accessed. Text and other graphical material in the "content" frame scrolls independently of the other frames. Users as a result see a consistent screen structure and the menus remain available at all times. As an aside, an understanding of "content=" and iframes has turned out to be important; without it, maintaining the consistency of the frames and some aspects of navigation would have been difficult. I would say if a frames approach is right for what your business website is trying to do then use it and pay no attention to purists and theoreticians. The old concerns about crawlers not finding frame contained content don't matter if your website is a commercial application that users will either come to or not and with the increasing reliance on paid-for page ranking the importance of crawlers/spiders is declining. And always remember that if your content is ASP or otherwise script generated, crawlers and spiders won't find it anyway. Not all web activity is "search and surf"; more and more site visits are deliberate and repeated; think of Amazon, eBay, DELL and so on. If you are building a website to cater for the kind of needs Amazon visitors, say, have then forget about frames from a conceptual perspective and ask yourself " would my website offer better performance, improved visitor experience and be easier to develop and maintain if I used frames?" If the answer is "yes" then so be it.
|
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4139 Joined: 7/24/2002 From: England (but live in Finland now) Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 7:56:21
quote:
ORIGINAL: briesmith We're just about finishing the development of a large ASP driven website which is totally dependent on frames. At the outset the developers were riven by argument about frames; whether or not to use them. The pro-frames camp won the day and we went ahead with a frames based design. The advantages are clear in terms of performance, screen stability and page management. CSS and/or tables remain available without restriction and menuing is, if anything, facilitated. > what perfromance gain is there in using frames when you have at least 2 times as many html doucments? screen stability is a question of good design and site architecture. css and/or tables are 'available' whether or not you use frames. how do you account for differnces in screen settings (e.g. 800x600 etc) when designing menus where differnces are likely to result in scroll bars appearing? you can't use dropdown menus unless they fit in the frame as they won't display across frames. Relying on ASP and supporting classes means that heavy processing loads are placed on the server and significant quantities of code are sent to the clients. Reducing the amount of screen area that changes with each page access helps to mitigate the impact of these two factors. > your code should be lean in the first place Additionally, limiting the amount of screen area that changes also helps with readability. Frames allow headline graphics and menus to remain on screen without "flickering" or, on slower systems, slowly refreshing each time a page is accessed. > users are *more* used to using unframed pages than framed pages so readability is again down to good usability. headline graphics are cached and will simply be displayed again without the need for downloading. Text and other graphical material in the "content" frame scrolls independently of the other frames. Users as a result see a consistent screen structure and the menus remain available at all times. > this is about the only 'advantage' i see in frames, but users are so used to the non-frame left menu, shortish page structure that it isn't a problem anyway. As an aside, an understanding of "content=" and iframes has turned out to be important; without it, maintaining the consistency of the frames and some aspects of navigation would have been difficult. I would say if a frames approach is right for what your business website is trying to do then use it and pay no attention to purists and theoreticians. The old concerns about crawlers not finding frame contained content don't matter if your website is a commercial application that users will either come to or not and with the increasing reliance on paid-for page ranking the importance of crawlers/spiders is declining. And always remember that if your content is ASP or otherwise script generated, crawlers and spiders won't find it anyway. Not all web activity is "search and surf"; more and more site visits are deliberate and repeated; think of Amazon, eBay, DELL and so on. If you are building a website to cater for the kind of needs Amazon visitors, say, have then forget about frames from a conceptual perspective and ask yourself " would my website offer better performance, improved visitor experience and be easier to develop and maintain if I used frames?" If the answer is "yes" then so be it. how do you get around bookmarking, printing, refreshing/revisiting the page (when it goes back to the original frameset)? users that require screen readers or other devices for navigation can easily find framesets confusing and if you change two frames (say one updates with content, the other to indicate which page in the naviagation you are on) frames are harder to implement for new authors IMO frames are mostly for lazy developers who don't know any better. i can't think of one respected site that uses frames and i am in no way convinced of their advantages (if any) outweighing their considerable disadvantages. another potential problem i just thought of could arise should you wish to port your content to mobile devices (i.e. what do yuo do with the frames??), but i have very little knowldge of that so i don't know.
_____________________________
David Prescott Gekko web design
|
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 9:31:32
what perfromance gain is there in using frames when you have at least 2 times as many html documents? Using frames in itself has no impact on page numbers. screen stability is a question of good design and site architecture. Just glib claptrap I’m afraid. Screen stability is a physical thing dependent on how often and how much pages change during use. css and/or tables are 'available' whether or not you use frames. how do you account for differnces in screen settings (e.g. 800x600 etc) when designing menus where differnces are likely to result in scroll bars appearing? We don’t. We’re writing a serious application and have selected 800x600 as the screen resolution at which scroll bars will not be necessary. you can't use dropdown menus unless they fit in the frame as they won't display across frames. Don’t need drop-down menus (they’re not obligatory!) as the page inventory is too large to use them. > your code should be lean in the first place More glib clap trap; the amount of code you have is the amount you need to do the work. > users are *more* used to using unframed pages than framed pages so readability is again down to good usability. headline graphics are cached and will simply be displayed again without the need for downloading. Evidence? Common sense would say that users are used to the sites they use and, in our case, will be largely unaware that frames are involved. Graphics may be cached according to the client m/c’s settings; menus, however, are not because in our application they are generated dynamically according to visitor status and activity. > this is about the only 'advantage' i see in frames, but users are so used to the non-frame left menu, shortish page structure that it isn't a problem anyway. Pages can only be as “shortish” as the application allows. Limiting page size to save scrolling merely increases the number of round trips made to fetch data and can make it impossible for a visitor to get a comprehensive “picture” of the content. how do you get around bookmarking, Can’t bookmark ASP/generated pages. printing, We provide a Printer Friendly option refreshing/revisiting the page (when it goes back to the original frameset)? As I said “an understanding of "content=" “ is useful for navigation that require screen readers or other devices for navigation can easily find framesets confusing Confining the variable content to a specific area of the screen positively helps users with screen readers and prevents them continually hearing stuff they’ve already heard. Visitors using magnifiers also have to use less cursor travel. and if you change two frames (say one updates with content, the other to indicate which page in the naviagation you are on) See earlier comments frames are harder to implement for new authors I have no evidence for this. Unlike Dave? IMO frames are mostly for lazy developers who don't know any better. i can't think of one respected site that uses frames and i am in no way convinced of their advantages (if any) outweighing their considerable disadvantages. My money paid for the development effort and I can assure you that no lazy developers were employed. What’s a “respected site”? All the household names have been around for years and like all software are now hybridised, layered, enhanced and amended out of all recognition and probably deploy, in all their various parts, every technique and technology known to man. another potential problem i just thought of could arise should you wish to port your content to mobile devices (i.e. what do yuo do with the frames??), but i have very little knowldge of that so i don't know. Porting and portability is a myth. I would close by reiterating the following. I would say if a frames approach is right for what your business website is trying to do then use it and pay no attention to purists and theoreticians.
|
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4139 Joined: 7/24/2002 From: England (but live in Finland now) Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 10:36:05
well thanks for putting me straight so convincingly ;)
_____________________________
David Prescott Gekko web design
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7123 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 10:45:21
quote:
I would say if a frames approach is right for what your business website is trying to do then use it and pay no attention to purists and theoreticians. everything you wrote has merit especially this summary but remember, this thread began with a newbie designing a "small" site - your stated experiences and opinions derive from large complex applications so I think the initail questioner is better off w/out frames
_____________________________
Dan
|
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 11:03:27
Fair enough dpf. But frames - especially the top bar, side bar, content frame - are a doddle to design and shouldn't present any problems even to a beginner. And FrontPage (2003) supports frames very well... Pace dave
|
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4139 Joined: 7/24/2002 From: England (but live in Finland now) Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 11:11:51
quote:
Pace dave ? :)
_____________________________
David Prescott Gekko web design
|
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 11:23:33
"Peace"
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7123 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 11:27:14
imo the issue isnt how easy or hard to design.... there are real search engine issues with frames... in your post, you talked about major companies using it..companies not need search to be found but with a small new site, SEO compatability is important. by and large one of 2 things happens with frames. 1. no html on home page and spider moves on..no indexing of site 2. spider follows links and index partial pages it finds both are bad. also, lack of bookmarking is important to many sites. long before my current vocation in web business, i learned about computers as a manager in large organizations dealing with IT depts (they were EDP in those days..lol) one thing I learned quickly that remained true accrooss 20 yrs and many organizations is the tendancy of IT professionals to make decisions based upon ease of their work instead of ease for user. i find that true in web area and I try to avoid it. the only time i have ever seen frames add to the users experience is where the left side is very very long..such as the index or table of contents to material - legal research for example...you scroll way down- find what you think you wnat and click..the material comes up in right side and if it isnt what you want, you still have your "place" on right side. other than that i have yet to see an instance where frames improved users experience..and that is my focus. anyhooo
_____________________________
Dan
|
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4139 Joined: 7/24/2002 From: England (but live in Finland now) Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 11:48:26
peace briesmith.
_____________________________
David Prescott Gekko web design
|
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 12:23:32
It's off at a bit of a tangent to the rest of the post but I must add the following. The future for genuine search engines is bleak. The sheer volume, complexity of pages and the rate of content change on the web all speak for their demise. Web users behaviour is also changing as they become more skilled users of the web. After a relatively short time a lot of users come to "know" the sites they need to visit and their level of pure surfing diminishes. To do otherwise would be illogical; working to keep findng the same pages (ie the ones you like to do business with) is a waste of effort. Now that is it safe to assume that nearly every business/organisation has a website; search and surf is unnecessary. Just guess at the URL, you'll probably be correct. If you want to be found in the future use accompanying marketing to promote your website or pay for a precisely targetted and managed presence. As soon as Google is the last man standing in the SEO arena then you can say goodbye to "free" searching and, apparently, "random" hits. PS dpf: You CANNOT bookmark dynamically generated content.
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7123 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 12:27:33
quote:
PS dpf: You CANNOT bookmark dynamically generated content I didnt say you could....but the person posing the question to which we are supposedly providing assistance did not seem to indicate the dynamically generated content was envisioned.
_____________________________
Dan
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7123 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/4/2004 12:32:43
I in fact tkae the exact opposite view... more and more people are and will use the net to search for new products and services. the premise that you will quickly find the companies you want to do business with and stick to then doesnt fil how people live their lives. Today, I am on a quest for basement windows... Ive never replaced them before and hopefully never will again but i am now and want to see whats outt here..thats what people do when they search. i also disagree witht he premise that "guess at the url " and you will find it..too many varaibles...some abbreviate some dont.... While Google would love to be the last man standing, the recent actions on the part of Yahoo and Microsoft suggest a long and protracted war and renewed interest in search...any of the three could be last man standing..or all three.
_____________________________
Dan
|
|
|
|
Giomanach
Posts: 6114 Joined: 11/19/2003 From: England Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/5/2004 2:55:13
Just to be different, and perfectly honest: Frames are a waste of time, and, if using Tables, and you have an ASP enabled server, why not get really savvy with SSI, and use that as a substitute for frames. Once it is cached to the local machine, the browser will just pull it from there, unless the user has their browser set to check for a new copy of the page everytime he/she visits it. And not meaning to sound like the oh so furry one (gorilla), why not use a pure CSS layout? Dan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
leanneB14
Posts: 36 Joined: 2/19/2004 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/9/2004 22:07:07
Just to add in my two cents worth. I wanted to use frames in the intranet i was building for one reason: As i knew there would be other less experienced html users wanting to make their own pages, I thought it would be easiest for them to just have to make a page that only contained the content. This way they did not have to worry about using the template i had made, or the layout of the page. They just had to put the information in the page, they could even use ms word to create the html page. This is about the only reason i can see for using frames, and in the end even i didn't end up using this, mainly because my drop down menu didn't work over the frames, but also it was actually going to be a bit of a pain for me to do. As there are heaps of pages. Oh and just one more thing... has anyone noticed that we haven't heard from the inital poster for a while??? Leanne
|
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67 Joined: 2/6/2003 Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/10/2004 6:56:20
User administered content is easy to manage inside a content frame but making it possible for a user to create new pages and add them to the menu can only be done by dynamically generating the menu from a database. With this approach users can create and add new pages ad nauseam but only to a specified place in the menu structure. Allowing them to manipulate the menu structure itself is something else altogether in terms of complexity and might be something you don't want to do... This approach is common in webapps involving product inventory where each newly carried stock item gets its own page created and added to the database and which then automatically appears in the "right" place whenever the menus are generated. One interesting approach to creating content is to use the text tool (what I'm using right now to create this post) as a page content manager. While this won't bring back existing content (without some amendment) users can simply cut and paste existing content into the text area and then amend it - with as much html format control as the tool provides - as appropriate. Saving the "topic" writes the updated page back to the web page. Doing things this way keeps everything web wise, avoids separate publishing operations and saves users getting to grips with wp/page publishing software.
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7123 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 6/10/2004 9:55:02
quote:
Oh and just one more thing... has anyone noticed that we haven't heard from the inital poster for a while??? Leanne lol..here is the third post in the thread...lol Sold!! that's the "why" i was looking for. thanks.
_____________________________
Dan
|
|
|
|
jaybee
Posts: 14175 Joined: 10/7/2003 From: Berkshire, UK Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 4/20/2005 9:10:17
Try looking at your sites in Firefox/Opera etc. None of the links top right show up. Your left border has a scrollbar when viewed at 1024x768 and 800x600. The sites are completely inaccessible. Anyone coming along with a screen reader will be presented with: This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them. <script type="text/javascript">
//====================================================================================================
// ECMAv3 allows parseInt to infer that a number is octal (radix 8) if it has a leading '0'.
// Replace with function that defaults to decimal (radix 10) whether or not there is a leading '0'.
//====================================================================================================
// Save original function
this.parseIntOrig = this.parseInt;
// Replace with function that calls on to original, passing explicit radix.
this.parseInt = function()
{
return parseIntOrig(arguments[0], arguments.length == 1 ? 10 : arguments[1]);
};
</script>
<script language="Javascript">
var params = new Params();
function Params()
{
this.awayReportDeadline = 72;
this.equalPointsRule = 1;
this.headerFrameTitle = '<span style=\"font-size:18pt\">WEST HERTS ARLON PRINTERS SATURDAY LEAGUE</span><span style=\"font-size:12pt\">West Herts Football Club Association Established 1891</span><span style=\"font-size:9pt\">Affiliated to the Hertfordshire Football Association</span>';
this.homeReportDeadline = 72;
this.matchDays = 0000001;
this.matchSecretaryEmail = '';
this.maxDivisionsPerRegion = 4;
this.maxDivisionsPerRegionRow = 3;
this.maxPlayersPerSide = 14;
this.maxSidesPerClub = 3;
this.maxSidesPerDivision = 11;
this.nofRegions = 1;
this.pointsForDraw = 1;
this.pointsForWin = 3;
this.refereeReportDeadline = 72;
this.regionTerm = 'Section';
this.styleSheetName = 'Shady_Gray';
this.currSeasonID = 1;
this.leagueName = 'West Herts League';
this.shortLeagueName = 'West Herts';
this.seasonStartDate = '4/9/04';
this.seasonEndDate = '31/5/05';
}
</script>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<script language="JavaScript" src="jscripts/standardHead.js"></script>
<title>
West Herts
</title>
</head>
<script>
function setContentTitle(title)
{
top.frames['titlebar'].document.getElementById('contentTitle').innerText = title != null ? title : top.frames['content'].document.title;
}
function refreshFrames()
{
refreshHeaderFrame();
refreshTitlebarFrame();
refreshMenuFrame();
}
function refreshHeaderFrame()
{
frames['header'].location.replace('header_frame.asp');
}
function refreshTitlebarFrame()
{
frames['titlebar'].location.replace('titlebar_frame.asp');
}
function refreshMenuFrame()
{
frames['menu'].location.replace('menu_frame.asp');
}
function reloadAll()
{
top.location.reload();
}
function showHomePage()
{
frames['content'].location.replace('info_page.asp?pagetype=1');
}
function blankPage()
{
return('<html>\n' +
'<head>\n' +
'<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/Shady_Gray.css">\n' +
'</head>\n' +
'<body>\n' +
'<div id="divContent" class="content"></div>\n' +
'</body>\n' +
'</html>');
}
// Return path to site root folder. Path is returned with a trailing "/" eg "/" or "/LMan/".
function rootFolderPath()
{
return '/';
}
// Once frameset is loaded with header, menu and blank page, we can load the content frame. We have to wait
// for header to be loaded because the content page will access it to set the page title bar.
function loadContentFrame()
{
if('info_page.asp?pagetype=1' != '')
frames['content'].location.replace('info_page.asp?pagetype=1');
}
</script>
<frameset id="topFrameset" rows="95,20,*" frameborder="0" framespacing="0" onload="loadContentFrame()">
<frame name="header" scrolling="no" famespacing="0" noresize src="header_frame.asp" target="content">
<frame name="titlebar" scrolling="no" famespacing="0" noresize src="titlebar_frame.asp" target="content">
<frameset cols="180,*" id="appFrameset" frameborder="0" border="0">
<frame name="menu" src="menu_frame.asp" scrolling="auto" frameborder="0" noresize="noresize" style="display:none" target="content">
<frame name="content" src="javascript:top.blankPage()" scrolling="auto" frameborder="0" noresize="noresize">
</frameset>
</frameset>
<noframes>
<body>
<p>This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.</p>
</body>
</noframes>
</html>
Having now seen the sites, I see absolutely no reason for using frames on them. If you want that effect it can easily be done with css and includes resulting in leaner, cleaner and accessible code.
_____________________________
If it ain't broke..... fix it until it is. GAWDS Now where did I put that Doctype?
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7123 Joined: 11/12/2003 From: India-napolis Status: offline
|
RE: why tables, not frames? - 4/20/2005 13:52:07
quote:
Hopefully, these sites show an application of frames that justifies their appropriate use. absolutely not! Nothing accomplished via frames that couldnt be accomplished several other ways.
_____________________________
Dan
|
|
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
|
|
|