Pros and Cons of Frames

[ShawnR]

Hi

This is probably going to show up my ignorance big time... (It will also probably show my bias...)

Could you guys tell me why there is such a strong sentiment against frames. (It seems that many posts asking for help with frames start off with an apology, such as 'I inherited this site and need to do maintenance...'.)

Just as a primer, here are the issues I can see:

Disadvantages of using frames (for navigation, say):

• Orphaned pages (Solution: Javascript to check if in framed context, and if not, to reload() the frameset, passing the current page as a parameter after the '?')
  
• Bookmarking results in the index site being bookmarked, rather than the sub-page (Solution: Browser dependant. e.g. in IE right click on the frame to be bookmarked, rather than using the top menu)
  
• Search engine visibility (Solution: Put a good noframes section, including site map. Search bots are becoming smarter, anyhow.)
  
• Back button problems (partial solution: Use releoad() instead of href=...)
  
• Sync'ing selected menu option in 'nav' frame with 'content' frame. (Solution: Javascript called by onload() to check and correct)
  

Disadvantages of using alternatives to frames:

• Code repetition (e.g. menus repeated on each page)... A pain to maintain (Solution: Dynamic or CMS generated pages, or some HTML editors may automate this ...but I use text editors ;-( )
  
• Slower page download (Solution: Not that big a deal if browser has a decent caching mechanism)
  
• Fancy CSS solutions are difficult/impossible to get working cross-browser, particularly if support for NN4.x is required
  

Shawn

PS. Apologies if this is posted to the wrong forum. I couldn't figure which would be the best, so in the end I decided to post to the forum which would most likely have the strongest opinions.

[AmishJohn]

The classic frames design uses a "header frame", a left side vertical "navigation frame" and a "body frame". This design limits the portion of the body data that can be seen at any one time. It is not surprising that "flat" pages out perform "framed" pages. With an 800 by 600 screen the browser controls take up 150 pixels of height, the "header frame" another 150 pixels, leaving only 300 pixels of the body data that can be seen at any time. With a "flat" design 450 pixels (50% more) of body data can be seen at any time. Like any "Show Room window" more is better!

I have a medium size web site that has been "flat" from its inception over three years ago for all the reasons given in this thread. But I recently developed an alternate version of this web site using frames for the 95% of my visitors (and 99.5% of my customers!) who use IE4+ browsers with JS enabled. This new version looks "flat" but uses separate hidden frames to hold the header, navigation and body data. I put the page the surfer sees in a full screen frame using the JavaScript innerHTML command. The old version of the web site continues for other browsers and search engines.

With the new design, pages load much faster and surfers appear to being viewing about 50% more pages.

[mvl22]

"Why, throughout this discussion, has there been no mention of templates?"

If you mean templates in the Dreamweaver style, they're fine to a point, but then you have to re-upload all your pages to make changes.

Again, some sort of SSI/PHP/ASP/whatever-based solution that sticks bits together is by *far* the best solution in my view. Without this, there is no way I personally could run 30 sites covering 20,000 pages in a few hours a day.

[Jon_King]

mvl22 I have to admit I primarily work on sites of 250 pages or less. Your requirements for large deployments definitely are different from mine... it seems to be pretty much a necessity in your case for a 'frames/dynamic' solution. (As I thunk myself upside the head - dooough!)

[ShawnR]

"...Most major search engines are beginning to play down or ignore noframes ..."

Agreed, the major search engines are getting smarter, and starting to see framed pages closer to how a real-life visitor would. And so it should be. It seems to me that we should have been lobbying the search engines to get this part of their act together a lot earlier, instead of wasting time lobbying each other to stay away from frames. I recognise many excellent arguments in this thread, and not all of them are related to SEO, but my view is that in an ideal world SEO should be removed as a factor in weighing up the pros/cons of frames. I know that is not practical, and we live in the real world, but a couple of posts above have raised the notion of lobbying W3C to remove frames... I think that is the wrong approach. I think the right approach is to fix the problem, rather than ban it. i.e. lobby W3C and search engines to fix the problems with frames (respectively dirty tricks and search engine visibility). Of course, there will always be good and poor implementations, just as their are of flash, php, or any other technology. The free nature of the market should sort that aspect out, and it should not be regulated.

"...Solution : Server Side Includes...

I don't think it helps in sites which give navigation cues, you'd need to use php or some other server side processing as I indicated in post #1. Also, I feel that websites (or parts of websites) which don't really require server side processing (i.e. static sites) should avoid them. There are differing views on this issue at even the most expert and experienced level, and it would be a whole new debate in itself, but some arguments to support this become obvious when you consider that not everyone is on a high speed link; in some countries subscribers pay by the minute for ISP service; people on lap-tops or hand-held devices don't all have connectivity, so often visitors download a site for viewing later, etc.

"...Just like EVERYTHING in life. You need to learn. Once you have developed the skills this is not an issue...

Ouch, that hurt. :) There is heaps that I can learn, and that is why I find WebmasterWorld so great... we all love teaching each other, and everyone is so giving. At any rate, I'm not a CSS authority, but still I'm confident enough to stick by my statement. CSS2 features just don't work in browsers which only partially comply with CSS1!

"...Most 'special needs' browsers ..."

Thanks. A valuable point, which I hadn't considered.

"...even basic web surfers ... switch off JavaScript ...has leaped from 2% to 15%..."

Wow! That is another valuable point. Thanks! BTW, Do you know where we can get stats on that? My old favourite (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) seems to indicate that it has/is dropping rather than leaping (although still high at 10%)

Reviewing the posts so far, the compelling argument for me is the search engine performance and visitor performance. Many of the other issues (e.g. solution using server side processing vs CMS-generated) would come down to differing requirements, target audience, tastes, etc.

Shawn

[jaski]

The biggest factor against frames is that search engines dislike them. The pros I feel are far too less than the cons.

It will be interesting to see if there are any highly successful sites which use them .. yahoo, amazon, ebay, webmasterworld .. just any site which can be counted in top 500 on the web.

I really can't think of an example which uses frames.

can any one give an example?

[TheWebographer]

Nearly every professional site with frames I have been involved with eventually dropped using them.

When a client comes to us with a site, say in the banking industry that uses frames for online banking, they eventually drop them. To me frames are often used through inexperience. KISS - keep it simple stupid - is a great mantra for the web and frames are great at complicating things.

Of course, there are probably good uses for frames but I would stay away from them for most websites.

[jranes]

I learned this lesson the hard way. The bottom line is that most human editors at the SE's feel they are non-standard. I had a popular site that had every built-in contrivance to make sure the frames behaved properly but got rid of them because I needed all of the support from the SE editors I could get. Once I got rid of them, I was glad I did, they really don't solve anything and just create a ton of unecessary overhead. You could be writing copy with the time you spend making sure everything works in the frames.

Also the number of back links from all over the internet increased dramatically because people could see the correct url in the address bar.

[tedster]

Also the number of back links from all over the internet increased dramatically because people could see the correct url in the address bar.

Bingo! I never articulated that particular point before, but now that you say it, it's obvious. And not just backlinks from other sites and blogs, but friends emailing friends, and all the other excellent ways that access to information can spread.

[mckcd]

Going back to the comment that frames don't match the user's expectations.

I think think this problem stems from the programmer, ever worried about cross browser compatability to the point that most sites are far too similar. This creates the false illusion with the users that "this is a web site" and
"This is how a web site should and will always be"

Granted, I wish I knew the downside of frames before I ever got involved with them but, form what I've read more and more companies are convincing clients that compatability is crap. To me this is exciting because it will force users to upgrade browsers. Thus allowing developers to be creative and serving a more exciting experience to their visitors. Promote individuality!

Instead of banning frames why don't we make old browsers obsolete so we can all get out of this rut. To me it's rediculous that we don't push FREE I repeat FREE browser upgrades. What, you scared that that pop up from your browser detect will scare away visitors?

Forgive a newbie for going against the grain!

[shady]

Just the other day, a client suggested that he would prefer the design of his site to look like Outlook (i.e. Static menus with only portions of the layout refreshing).

I explained that this would require frames and the downside of frames.
In the end, I had to go to the extreme of telling them to go elsewhere if he wished to go ahead with this approach...... he agreed to drop the frames!

[tedster]

shady, you've brought an issue into clarity that may be the entire problem with frames. When they were first introduced (by Netscape, I believe) there was a fundamental error. The error was in thinking of a web page as if it is an application.

A web page is not an application - a BROWSER is an application. The page is a kind of smart document. But because it's "only" a document, the author can't expect his audience to learn a whole new interface just for this "one off" experience.

However, that's pretty much what frames brought into the picture - they broke the way standard web pages already worked.

An mkcd, no offense intended, but as I see it, this is also the flaw in your call to "promote individuality." Individuality is rightfully in the province of the document's content. But the document's infrastructure should stay out of the way.

At the level of the document, a web page should be nearly transparent to the user...and as familiar as possible, using innovation only as the content truly requires. No user wants to learn a new interface for every website they visit.

Now, at the level of content, a web page should sparkle and shine.

[rogue]

I have a site that is all frames and completely transparent and performs quite well with all browsers. I do exceptionally well in my cat, being listed in the top 3 to 5, and have many #1 listings for everything I want. And yes everything is completely legit as far as SEO and no spam and all that stuff. Granted its not a huge site but I have all the business I can handle. Yes it is a little more work to maintain but is easily managable with the right scripts. I suppose if a site was huge things would be more difficult.
I'm in the midsts of making the same basic site without frames to see if it makes a difference for the better but for my situation I can't see how it can. Only time will tell. I only posted this to say that frames done properly can, are, and will, perform just as well as any other site.
IMHO. But opinions change

[mckcd]

I agree.

As I said if I had known the downside of frames I would have never resorted to them. I don't think, however, that a framed site has to be hard to navigate.

I used frames because I saw other "cool" framed sites where only the content changed when moving through the site. I also didn't want my pages to take forever to load. Up until four weeks ago I didn't know frames existed. Are they becoming more popular?

Maybe originality is a better word than individuality.
(Hah I have a thesaurus).

[Allen]

Hi all,

Just adding my €0.02

It's interesting that although a couple of people have mentioned people who have to use special browsers or assistant programs like screen readers, no ones tackled this indepth. I did my work experiance at a place which taught such people and thus had all the associated devices, and it's a real eye opener as to why frames shouldn't be used. At the time my own website was in frames and it basically couldn't be navigated using the screen reader.

Bookmarking has to be one of the biggest down sides imo. Yes, some browsers do provide facilities for bookmarking individual frames, but why should I (the browser) have tobother. I just want to hit the bookmark shortcut on my keyboard or use the option in the menu up the top to bookmark sites.

I take the point about large sites with thousands of pages, but server side technologies such as PHP and SSI are a better alternative imo.

Also, looking at the XHTML 1.0 spec and XHTML 2.0 proposals, I could be wrong, but it looks to me like frames are deprecated.

As to someone's point about compatibility being crap and all the sites looking the same because of it, this is BS. I parse all my sites to either XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01. Compatiblity with all the major browsers (including NN4) is easy once you learn how. All the websites look the same because designers are (puts on flame-proof suit) unimaginative and just 'borrow' from each other all the time instead of coming up with new ideas.

Allen

[DavidT]

One little advantage of frames ive found is the ability to put pages in the main frame that are almost pure content text. Combined with external css, and left frame for nav., top for banner, main frame pages can have text to code ratios of high 90s to 1. In the body the only tags I use are h1, h2, ahref, and p.
Not many of my competitors can manage that.

[gcross]

<<It is a waste of time to even bother with .js files or frames... just use php includes and all of your problems will be solved. >>

MWPro:)
In the collective history of web design, PHP is the new kid on the block to Javascript and Frames. And while I have no use for frames, personally, I use Javascript extensively on my websites and it works for me, simply and easily. I have no expertise with PHP yet and no time to learn it. Since I already have Javascript for user-side scripting and Perl/CGI for server-side scripting, I don't see the point in wasting my limited free time on acquiring another server-side language. Especially when one throws in ASP and the host of other languages that have emerged in the last two or three years. In fact, I know so little about them, I'm probably not even using the lingo correctly. Just because something is new or different doesn't automatically mean that what is older or stale is ready for the junk heap. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'd rather spend my limited free time developing new content for my sites than reinventing the wheel every few months.

It would be more constructive, IMHO, were you to offer some examples of how PHP could be used to solve the problems the initiator of this thread posed in the first message.

Thank you.

[gsx]

mckcd: "To me it's rediculous that we don't push FREE I repeat FREE browser upgrades."

Not always possible. Internet Explorer 6 does not run on Windows 95 for example. My father will not upgrade as he uses W98, XP and NT at work and they crash and have problems repeatedly. As does my machine. His Windows 95 machine has crashed about once per year in over 6 years. Why would he want to upgrade his whole machine, just because a browser becomes redundant? This makes a FREE upgrade suddenly become a large expense. And I can't see Microsoft writing future browsers to work on all historical operating systems!

[tedster]

Also, looking at the XHTML 1.0 spec and XHTML 2.0 proposals,
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like frames are deprecated.

I'm also struggling to understand this one. In the interests of backward compatibility, the spec did eventually include a frames module in XHTML 1.1 [w3.org].

XHTML 2.0 is still at the level of a non-stable working draft - so it's hard to see what's going on. It does feel like there's a move away from frames, but there's never been an official use of the "d" word so far from the W3C that I know of. Lot's of behind the scenes talk [lists.w3.org], however.

[ShawnR]

grahamstewart just posted a clever implementation, which, used in conjunction with SSI, solves my main complaint about non-framed solutions either requiring code repetition or server side processing. See message number 16 in [webmasterworld.com ]

Shawn

[pgsbs]

I've never managed to get a framed site listed correctly in the searchengines. Therefore I now work with tables (in HTML) only. Through working with tables I can give my webpage the design I want and get listed correctly in the searchengines.

[rogue]

<I've never managed to get a framed site listed correctly in the searchengines.>
How can I be the only one that doesn't have trouble with frames. Have never had the first problem getting my sites listed properly with any search engine.

[pbreit]

Another disadvantage to frames that doesn't get discussed much is that with IE 6, there's a big problem with cookies when frames are being served by different computers. IE 6 defaults Privacy to Medium which blocks cookies from "third party servers" (e.g., the server serving the framed page) if that server doesn't have a Compact Privacy Policy (few servers do).

[support.microsoft.com...]

I believe the criticism of frame usage is generally warranted.

[vkaryl]

"I think there might be something deeper, where the perception of "continuity" on the web is so totally different than the physical world, that it is literally disorienting for some piece of a site to just sit there continuously, without changing with new page loads.

I think it actually makes more sense to us somehow for new pages to completely reload, and that this is because we somehow perceive time on the web as starting fresh with each page load. Does anyone else sense this?"

Speaking for self only, I say the answer to that question is a resounding "NO"! When I discovered sites that used frames, my mind said in effect, "Oh goddess, someone FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT. THANK YOU!"

I haven't changed my mind in the slightest. Frames make perfect sense to me as a navigation tool. Add a menu system such as one of those from Imint, and I'm a truly happy camper.... [Aside: "flat" sites drive me somewhat 'round the bend - they're just exactly that: flat. They just sit there....]

As to commercial sites and their functionalities or lack thereof, I only use my bank (actually credit union) site (frames and js, cgi - okay, so they're still back in the stone age); various credit card sites (frames and js, asp usually, but sometimes php); my cell phone and insurance company sites (frames and js, jsp); JCPenney, Victoria's Secret, and Cabela's (all frames and js, asp and php at Christmas, haven't used any of them since) - works for me....

[This is a personal opinion only. You are entitled to your own opinion which may and probably will vary; and the expression of which has my complete approbation and blessing....]>>Silvermoon's Standard Disclaimer<<

[idiotgirl]

Frames, iframes, tables, red meat, and sugar. What do these have in common? Taboo to many, standard fodder for some, and used "in moderation" by others.

Yes, there are workarounds to get your frames pages indexed, and many posters on this board can testify to how they've done so effectively, and even attained top rankings.

Yes, the overwhleming trend on this board would lean toward no tables (for layout) and no frames for compliance reasons. It's been a hot topic for months and months.

However, for (example) photo galleries (possibly something you don't wish to have indexed) and some e-commerce applications, frames seem to serve a purpose. When somethng does not beg repetition (nav bars, menus, even graphical elements) - is it always necessary to incorporate those as static page elements into "flat" pages?

When frames are outlawed only outlaws will use frames.

[sweditor]

I am a newbie and this topic is of great interest to me as I have been struggling to decide whether to flatten my framed sites. My first framed site was indexed properly by Google even though I didn't use the noframes meta tag.

Thus encouraged, I have a new framed one (again no noframes, I'm still learning) that has been partially crawled by Google but this time not indexed correctly. I'm waiting to see if a fuller crawl will correct it. Guess I may have to get my bulldozer ready just in case.