Frames - a summary of the bad and the good

[tedster]

Frames have been with us for quite a few years. At first they quickly achieved a disastrous "fad" status similar to other web design fads. Now, they have faded way back in use as their limitations became clearer.

I thought it would be good to catalog those bad aspects as well as the good in one thread. Here's what I've seen.

THE BAD SIDE
Frames:
1. Challenge some users who just don't understand them
2. Eliminate any "you are here" change for links to the page currently displayed
3. Rule out normal bookmarking of inner pages
4. Require heavier maintenance to keep the site search engine friendly
5. Distort page-view stats from the server logs

THE GOOD SIDE
Frames:
1. Keep navigation on screen, even for long content pages
2. Help content pages to be light weight, saving bandwidth and generating higher kw density
3. Allow easy sharing of content between sites
4. Facilitate content management for non-savvy authors

Any more?

[Birdman]

It seems that it could be good for small sites that can fit all page links in screenshot. The best frames pages I've used were stats programs.

[korkus2000]

Bad Side
Create strange views at different resolutions such as side scrolling.
Harder to master for new authors.
Harder to use DHTML and CSS Positioning to cross over frame barrier.

Good Side
Allows static elements to not be reloaded and saving bandwidth and load time.
Prevents careless errors from multiple creations of a static element.

A lot of new technologies like server-side includes, inline frames, and DHTML have compensated for frame's "good sides" without as many "bad sides". I think that frames where an old implementation of a need that new technologies now fulfill. They have become a relic of the past like font tags and other style elements that are now being phased out by CSS.

[Birdman]

Sorry to waste a post but, I sure would like to hear from my favorite mod. Where are you papa?