I love frames

  tasslehoff burrfoot 23:30 01 Dec 2004

Hi all

I have a very basic understanding of web design and was wondering if somebody cold answer a question for me.

Why are frames frowned upon so? I have read loads of times that you should always use tables instead but can't see how tables are as functional.

As an example (the only one I can think of actually) you could have a nice page with two frames vertically, the left taking up 10% of the width and the right gets the rest. The left frame can be like an index of links and scroll up and down independantly of the right. You cant do this with tables (can you?)

Just interested, really, why frames are such a pariah.



  barryoneoff.co.uk 23:39 01 Dec 2004

exactly the same as the above, with tables. The only difference, being that they wont open new pages inside them as frames do, and confuse the visitor.
Hardly anyone likes a site with frames. The also confuse search engine spiders.

Everyone has their own taste, personally I hate them.

  tasslehoff burrfoot 23:42 01 Dec 2004

How would I do that with tables then?



  barryoneoff.co.uk 23:45 01 Dec 2004

10% width table on the left, with an index of links, and a large table on the right with the rest of the stuff.

  tasslehoff burrfoot 00:03 02 Dec 2004

But surely the table is one length so there is no indedpendant scrolling?


  tasslehoff burrfoot 00:05 02 Dec 2004

Do you mean two tables of one column each?

This would then enable them to be different lengths. Can you put the target in the second table?



  Forum Editor 00:05 02 Dec 2004

Frames are more complex and therefore more prone to errors. Visitors are unable to check back quickly to a given page as individual pages can't be easily bookmarked. Tables are quicker to download and simple to create. But perhaps most importantly, the majority of people using the internet simply don't like frames.

With tables you can create stand-alone pages, with a uniform design, a search engine can easily index your site. With frames, linking to one of your pages from another source becomes more complex. A search engine can link to one of your pages, so a user surfs in on that page, but gets that page without the framestructure. You always have to offer an option on your page to go to a main entry point within the frameset, so the user has access to a navigation structure.

Tables aren't the complete answer to a web designer's prayer by any means - they have their drawbacks too. Web browsers wait until they have all the dimensions of the content of a table before writing the information to the screen. Tables can become very complex, especially if nested, and If a user has a slow connection he or she might click away to another site instead of waiting.

On balance I prefer tables every time - I believe that I can design a more appealing site with them, and obtain a more sophisticated look. I also find that I have more room on the page for content.

  Sir Radfordin 11:14 02 Dec 2004

Frames seems to be a fairly quick and dirty method of doing things. I used to use them before switching to tables becuase of the reasons given by FE and FM. I am just completing a project to produce an Intranet internally. Because I know the environment etc that it is going to run in have done it with frames because it is the best solution.

Everyone has their preferences.

  tasslehoff burrfoot 19:15 02 Dec 2004

Your points are all valid.

But, perhaps, the most important point was from FE: "the majority of people using the internet simply don't like frames."

And who are we designing sites for if not our visitors?

Thanks once more


  jz 19:50 06 Dec 2004

Frames: a good idea, but badly implemented by Microsoft or Netscape or whoever it was.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iPhone X review

How to find a font: Discover the name of a typeface with these apps

The best iPhone for 2017

Comment créer un compte PayPal pour payer en ligne ?