The only thing that frames are good for, IMHO, is that they can be
resized by the user with a mouse (correct me if I am wrong if this can be
done with a keyboard). But how many times is that going to be an issue?
Almost never. I can hear the peanut gallery shouting "image gallery!",
and I refer you to Brucie's Sexy Butterflies
<http://butterflies.usenetshit.info/>.

Of course, one of the main problems is orphan SERPs[1]. The author can
add javascript to have the page call the frameset, but then, 1) it's
usually the index page and not the SERP, 2) users without javascript
still get the orphan. This can all be aleviated server side, but if you
have access to server side, why use frames in the first place?

Then there's bookmarking, very similar to the SERP problem, but the
browser will bookmark the frameset, not the document. So, you go back
and you get the index page again, and have to dig around until you find
the page you originally bookmarked.

There are other problems as well, so, as Nancy says, Just Say No. Use a
server side include, or use a preprocessor, but don't use frames.

[1] - Search Engine Result Page

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

my observations. And from what I see folk saying here, the alternatives
(fixed nav wise) are not any better supported. I would be unlikely to use
them for a new site, (better to design otherwise altogether), but it would
be a lot of work to change the one site I did years back with frames - I
don't think it is justified to spend money on this feature at the moment.

Toby Inkster has just about said all of how best to guard against the bad
things. Ask him. In my case I make sure there is a link to a home page which
*is* frame-free.

Search is not everything on the internet, Google is not everything,
Bookmarks are not everything. There are other priorities in many cases. In
my case, it is a manufacturer who is aiming at the distributors, a fixed lot
by and large, and it serves as a reference to potential retail customers who
phone in and are told to see things on the website, thus saving having to
post out an expensive paper catalogue (the manufacturer does not trade with
the public directly).

By the home page being frame-free it is easy to bookmark. The frames are a
great convenience elsewhere despite potential and other technical drawbacks.
They are not nasty and horrible things at all. They are big friendly cuddly
things, think whales, they mean real well, they may be a bit clumsy and have
drawbacks but ... just writing this is making me yearn to go and be among
some...

dorayme

.... warm, cute, cuddly things ... like a big teddy-bear?

Frames are just fine -- providing they're used properly.

But that's OK. You just need to ensure:
(a) You use the <noframes></noframes> to supply either a menu or a link
to a menu page.
(b) The content frames contain a link back to the menu (frameset or menu
page).

Not really -- even if it was true. But it's not.

IE users have been able to bookmark a framed page 'in context' for years
(and that's 85-90% of your audience); other browser manufacturers
haven't thought it a big enough deal to warrant providing the facility.

Most modern AT (assistive technology) UAs (screen readers, talking
browsers, etc.) handle a well-written framed site without any
difficulty.

Hmmm. Can't think of anything significant to provide you with.

Aren't they, just.

Still, just sit back and wait for the frames-are-evil people to provide
you with a lot of references. Just remember to take the batteries out of
your bogosity meter while your reading them to prevent being constantly
distracted;-)

--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

The entire argument being that pages somewhere deep down inside the site should
be the ones a visitor should be able to bookmark, this seems fully beside the
point.



--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

I am part way through writing a frames tutorial, that explains how to
circumvent most of the problems with frames:

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/frames/frameset.php

However, these are just a few ideas, and (perhaps with a little more
effort) you'll generally achieve better results by dropping frames
altogether.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./keane/hopes_and_fears/09_this_is_the_last_time.ogg

Frames like everything else have their place. I use them on a daily
bases for client slide shows. Could I use brucies method? Sure I
could. But Photoshop doesn't know it. And All I have to do to make a
slide show to show clients their picutres is pick a menu item in
potoshop.

Would I use them in a comercial site? Most likely not. Do I use then
for clients? Absolutely. Have I ever had a customer complain? Never.
Have I ever had a customer who could not see them? Never. Have I ever
had a customer that could not see them and I don't know? Nope, because
there is a 1 to 1 relationship between the slide shows and the
customers and we are on the phone with theme very single time the look
at them.

So there is a place for them.

--
-=tn=-

Re:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/frames/f...t.php?page=keep


I always like to explain that the separate frames (or in your terminology,
"layers", the blue bits in your graphic) are in fact separate <insert
operating system> GUI windows that are child windows of the browsers client
window (the red bit, the one that contains the "frameset" page).

This makes it very easy to explain why the nice pretty dropdown menu system
you have created in your top "menu" frame (if you would rotate your image 90
degrees clockwise) do not work, that is the dropdowns seem to disappear
"underneath" the content frame below the menu frame.

They of course disappear because they drop down *outside* the GUI window in
which they live, just as if you ran that menu frame by itself in a browser
window 100 or whatever pixels high.

<aside>
The blue bits don't exactly cover the red bit. The screen real estate in the
vertical gap between the blue bits (in your graphic) is owned by the red
bit. It is the so called frame "border" you can mouse drag. It is not
actualy the frame border, it is maintained and event handled by the window
that contains the frameset, the browsers client window. Much like an MFC
splitter window, if you do MFC that is :-)

I feel this is important because just about everybody talks about "dragging
the frame borders". You aren't. You are actualy dragging the gap between the
frames.
</aside>




Your PHP solution for having a seperate "URL" for each "page" is neat, I
surmise you are using that page parameter to choose the appropriate content
page for the generated frameset.

There is another solution available if server side stuff is not available to
the masses.

Have a seperate frameset for each "page". The menu frame links, and all
other links for that matter, target _top.

True, almost twice as many files but each frameset will refer to the same
menu frame so we get the "one menu page" benefit and we get the unique URL
bit. The frameset pages would naturally be generated by a suitable
pre-processor.

You might have thought of this, AFAICT you stopped typing part way through
this page :-)

Cheers
Richard.

I keep waiting for brucie to do one that works that nice with 500 images. I
know the old fart could do it in a weekend if he didn't keep getting all
tangled up in his pink gaffers tape.

--
Dennis

sounds sexy.

--
Dennis

Yep -- all the PHP source is available:

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/frames/

The NOFRAMES feature is far more fun than the unique URLs. :-)

Opera > Tools > Preferences > Advanced > Content > Enable Frames > disable.

And yes, it is possible to do this without any server-side scripting, but
it's a whole lot easier if you script.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

seem over confident to me on this...

dorayme

I think this is good advice ...

dorayme

just a little misunderstood.
I still won't use them on a new site, but I'll stop obsessing over old
ones.

--
[Email Removed]
Email addy ROT13'd

If your old sites are commercial, now would be a good time to get your
thoughts together about how you used "cutting-edge" technology to
provide clients with the "very best solution available" at the time. But
alas, the web has moved on, and events have forced you to come to them
now, as the web has matured, to offer to redo the sites without frames
and incidentally for a fee, as they are now obsolete. You'll use a whole
new and much better technology that utilizes any-size-design, CSS to
unclutter the pages and make them faster, compliance to some spec, etc,
etc... If you have your thoughts together and you're good at sales, you
can do this. Otherwise someone else probably will.
I wouldn't advertise old framed sites until I fixed them up. Nearly all
commercial sites get upgraded periodically. It keeps developers alive.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/

I've never subscribed to that "frames are evil" view, but they're
certainly broken as an implementation of the concept.

For me, bookmarking (and its inability) is the killer. It's _possible_
to do bookmarkable frames, but it requires server-side coding and lots
of URL re-writing. On the whole it's easier to use SSI (or something)
and duplicate the repeated content across multiple pages than it is to
use frames just to get a menu, then have to sort out the frame's
problems.

--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.

Or you just need to use Internet Explorer (like 90% of the rest of the
Web population).

--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

I couldn't care less what you think about me since that has nothing to do with
the content of the argument.



--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

And miss out on tabbed browsing, decent CSS support, decent security, etc
just to be able to bookmark a handful of framed pages? No thanks.

And even if frames were universally bookmarkable, it still doesn't solve
the related problem of linking to a particular frame.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Why should I use an inferior browser just because the masses do?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

No, _I_ don't need to use it, I'd need to make my _users_ use it.
That's like having a "This Site Best Viewed With..." button.

And it still doesn't work. How do I print such a link on a business card
or paper advert ?

It's not that much.

Not sure there is much point in being so huffy on this one. I was not
thinking all that badly of you at all! In fact, I see one important point
you are right about. I just don't think it is the "entire argument" (was
this the phrase you used previously?). The OP was asking generally about
frames, I admitted to having at least one site in them, said I had taken
some precautions to have links back to a frameless home page, I thought this
was relevant to an aspect of the discussion.

Please care a bit about what I have to say, I am surely not so lost a cause?
Or maybe I am!

dorayme

Let's see.

I have a 3-frame presentation.

Frame 1. A through Z
Frame 2. A list of all the chemicals starting with A, or B or whatever's
set by Frame 1.
Frame 3. details about the safety measures for the chemical set by Frame
2.


So.

I want details about Isobutanol.

I click on 'I', then click on 'Isobutanol'.

How much more simpler could it be? Clearly you see a problem where there
is no problem.

regards.

--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

Your choice.

regards.
--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

regards.


--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

OK. The above chemical reference site belongs to you.

I, on the other hand, run a completely different website, on the topic
of painting.

I want to link to your page on Isobutanol, because that can be used as a
solvent. So I have a choice:

* link to your "isobutanol.html" page, in which case none of
your navigation loads up; or
* link to your "index.html" page, in which case the visitor
has to do extra work to find info on isobutanol.

Obviously I don't want to create extra work for my visitors, so I do the
former. The visitor never gets to see your navigation, so you miss out on
potentially valuable hits to other parts of your site.

Nice choice using frames there Jake.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

You make it seem worse than it is though. If Jake is careful to have put a
link to his home page on the solvent page concerned, it is not such a devil
of a choice. The visitor can go on if he wants via the link ...

dorayme

Especially if you take the third choice, and link to another site that
presents the same information in a more usable manner...

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*

And this is a problem? At the bottom of isobutanol.html is a link that
says something like "No navigation? Go here" ..... at which point
they're back at the frameset/index page.

Uh ... yes. The visitor has to press 'I', then click on 'Isobutanol'.

Again: this is a problem? Even Stupid People could manage this in about
half-a-second.

See above.

Are you really writing a page to tell people on how to use frames
properly? .................. now *that's* worrying ;-)

--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

can be anything you like (Frames, Iframes, Pop-up windows, Verdana font,
etc.).

i.e. You take up a position somewhere between 'Extreme' and 'Bogosity'
-- produce an argument -- and then claim that as the norm ;-)

regards.

--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

reasonably knowledgable user to bookmark the safety measures page for
isobutanol.

My chemical site uses some framed indexes, but has a "No frames" link
on each data sheet. Click the link and you have a complete page that
can be bookmarked in any browser that supports bookmarking.

<http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/index_cn_frame.html>

--
Alan Wood
http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)

I have read that simply put, some browsers don't have frame
ability. But is there some study that guess-timates how many?
If its say 30%, its worth worrrying about, but if its like 3%
not whole bunches. I am sure there are some die-hard Lynx
users and a few people running ancient browsers on W95-8.
The question is, has anybody figured out about what % are
not frames capable?

--
When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.

If Frames are not the hot setup, what is?
What do I google for to find tutorials to do it
in the best practices manner?

No need for me to practice hard doing it well
the wrong way.

What do I need to study to replace frames?



--
When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.

I have noticed this on a few sites. Now I understand.
It seem then that the guys who use frames should
be sure to have a next, previous, home link explicitly
working.
So its not then exactly a frame problem, but failure
to use frames right. Or am I not understanding this?

So frames would seem to be OK if you take these
problems into account.

Or are there other deeper problems with frames?




--
When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.

Just relax. Toby Inkster has made at various times very good suggestions
about frames. The decision whether to use them these days for serious sites
is not so hard given the problems.

But you are right that these problems are not the end of the world. I think
they are a very attractive and tempting technology. It is straight out nice
that a nav list does not disappear, there is something almost ridiculous in
fact in it doing so. We have become used to this absurdity because it
creates less problems overall.

The one site I did do in frames, with a frameless home page, is nice to work
on because folk can get to anywhere quickly and directly from the content
nav bar. It is also terrific for me to check things out for the same reason.
I will get around to being rid of them one day, but everyone should have at
least one framed site kicking about somewhere.

I have said before and I will say again, search engine problems, bookmarking
and so on are not everything. Most sites are hardly seen by anyone and never
will be. Home sites are often nice for oneself, family, a few friends and a
few contacts now and then. Frames are fine and I would go further: they are
great for such.

dorayme

You should probably check that $_GET['page'] is a valid page before
trying to include it. Right now, if you go to
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/frames/f...age=nonexistant,
it will try to open a file called pages/nonexistant.page and display a
PHP error message when the file can't be found.

I don't think there's much of a security vulnerability (you can't see
the database password by viewing ../../include.php, for instance, since
it appends .page to the filename), but it's always better to be safe
than sorry.

Most people use frames to keep a menu in place. The replacement for that
would be a server side include and CSS. http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?
Include_one_file_in_another

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

That depends on what functionality the frames provide that you want to
replace.

There are a couple of common reasons people use frames. The first reason
is so that they only have to update 1 file e.g. for their menu. The link
Adrienne provided explains various other solutions for that. The other
main reason is so that the navigation or header stays on the screen all
the time (i.e. scrolls separately from the body). This can be achieved
through CSS and position: fixed; (IE doesn't support it, but there are
Javascript workarounds).

What do your frames do that you want to know how to replace (if not one
of the above)?

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/

As for browsers-in-use, I'd say less than 1%. All even halfway-modern
graphical browsers anyone's ever heard of support frames.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

What about your most important visitor: googlebot?

Cheers
Richard.

You are making the assumption that a ranking in Google is important.

--
-=tn=-

I am just getting into HTML. I want to learn to use best practices,
at a fairly professional level. As far as I can see, the main issue with
frames is navigation (fault usually of lazy frames using site creator)
and lack of ability to bookmark a given frame.

The problem is looking like there is no easy way to achieve what frames
does without breaking things for IE and having to do complex workarounds for
that.

CSS sheets are in, the rest seems to be a big nest of gotchyas no matter
what you do.
--
When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.

--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

take time out to study.

regards.
--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

Well, a link back to a page or frameset containing the navigation.

You're understanding it OK.

Yes.

--
Jake
([Email Removed] .... just a spam trap.)

"Professional Level" is in the eyes of the beholder. Look out for
people that say the words "Never" or "Always" They are usually your
fringe professionals that wear blinders to anything that does not
completely agree with their thoughts.

Like everything else, frames have their place. Each project you work on
will dictate what is right and what is wrong.

The only reason for this is that none of the browsers seem to do it the
same way. Again, the individual project will dictate how this will come
into play.

There is lots a great advice here. But remember it is only advice.
Learn for your self. Look at what others are doing. Look at what seem
to be trends in web development.



--
-=tn=-

I have been using some html (modified slightly) on character entities from
the W3C site as reference for years. I think, if I may, I will now use
Alan's excellent page on this data from now on. It is more beautiful and
easier to navigate than the one I have.

This site reminded me of a small issue with frames. I want the left column
type to be bigger at times according to the tiredness of my eyes. Easy
enough, I just hit command and + and everything goes up comfortably. But I
have either forgotten or never knew how to increase the size of the fonts in
just one frame. And when I did increase all, the top frame got obscured (the
frame being specified absolutely) - easily fixed by dragging the frame
border down. On windows PCs are there right click type ways of increasing
just some frame fonts?

(I think I just have always *liked* frames a lot, they are a nice toy! I
once made a home site with many sections and then, for the heck of it, made
one page in which the whole of my site could be seen without jumping
anywhere else off the page. Of course, one needed to use scroll bars like a
mad thing and be patiently dragging borders about... I just played with it,
I did not hear - yes, I know, it's sad - if anyone else in the world saw
it.)

dorayme

Basically, I want to avoid stuff that that would make somebody hiring
rolls their eyes and think "Well no.. amateur"

And I want to avoid working hard to learn something I will some day
have to unlearn.

So its going to be catering to IE 5,6,7 and Firefox it looks like.
which seem to be the most part of it.

Yes. Like I say though, I want to avoid learning something I will have to
unlearn.
That is always the hard way. "Geeze! If I had only known!"


--
When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.

Have a good solid understanding of HTML, CSS, client scripting, and some
flavor of Server scripting. Everything else will fall into place. As
far as specifics go, look at the kinds of sites representing the places
you will someday want to work. What do they do?


--
-=tn=-

If you're concerned about SE ranking, of course. However, we *were*
talking about browsers.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.