[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| 
|
Why no frames?
This site does not utilize frames and I think it is a fair question to ask, "Well, why not?" Although frames do have their uses, most often they hinder a site. But first, let's examine the positive aspects of frames.
- Page Layout: Frames are a useful means of organizing a page. A title bar across the top, a navigational strip down the left side and a content frame filling the rest of the window make an easily understood layout.
- Fast Loading: Only the portion of the page which is changing is loaded.
- Site Management: Changing the site appearance is easy: simply change the title bar and the navigational strip -- usually the graphics -- and these changes are immediately present throughout the entire site.
Although these are nice features of frames, they are neither unique, nor do they adequately offset the problems that frames create.
- Page Layout: This is easily achieved with tables. No points for frames.
- Fast Loading: The static portions of a page that are reloaded under the normal scheme is minimal. Graphics do not have to be reloaded and the static text portion of a page following this layout has a small size relative to the graphics. Insignificant comes to mind. No points for frames.
- Site Management: This can be identically achieved, with greater flexibility, using server side includes. Frames actually perform worse here. Negative points for frames.
Well, if the site does not take advantage of the flexibility offered by server side includes the above makes a frames site seem roughly equivalent to a non-frames site in terms of benefits. Not so, frames create problems for the web site.
- Navigation: Although supposedly what frames are best at, they actually hinder effective site navigation because they prevent the bookmarking of individual pages. The larger the site the more of a problem this becomes. Bookmarking is most effective with static sites who do not change structure and can only realistically be done with non-frame sites. Looking up information twice means navigating through all of the links a second time. NOT good site design. Accessibility is one of the marks of a good web site.
- Lynx: Although the "elite" scoff at the thought of a text only browser the truth is that some people persist in using lynx and similar browsers because they are fast. Turning off graphics in a normal browser improves speed considerably as well, but there is still an overhead in pagelayout. The presentations of frames is very problematic for a non-graphical browser. It is certainly not an ideal way to browse a site. Again, frames lose accessibility points.
The conclusion is obvious: frames are neither professional nor effective. Using server side includes provides a far more flexible and powerful means of site management.
|