Originally posted by ubunreal69 unless you have a realllllly good reason, i wouldnt reccomend using Frames for anything @ all, they only give troubles and are a complete waste of time; on all my life i have only seen one page that seems to have benefitted form them in a usefull way: Mail.yahoo.com (Yahoo mail service)
Hummm.. What if you want to show the same thing on many, many pages?
ok, i think, i understand now. "frame" is like frameset, divides the screen up into sections. "Iframe" is just creating a "Window" sort of frame inside a table or just somewhere on the page. correct me if i am wrong
btw. "sotusotusotu" ur explanartion wasnt bad I'm not good at explaining things either
If you have a page with a navigation, a display area (where the actual pages are showing) and a news area.
Then you have to load the navigation, the page and the news every time the page is replaced without using frames??
This can really slow things down, not every one sits on a DSL or higger connection....
I know that frames are not a good solution, but its a pretty good solution if you dont want the navigation and the news section to reload every time the user clicks on a navigation button.
Personally I like frames and see nothing wrong with them when used sensibly.
I saw a serious academic site once which had nine frames on it; that's a tad excessive, although there were good reasons for having that many. Normally 2 or perhaps 3 at the most are fine.
I'm not too keen on IFRAMES though, they're messy.
What is so wrong in having a thin "navigation" frame somewhere which never moves when the main part is scrolled?
Thats OK. Its when they get abused thats the problem. You go to someones site, click a link and then you get stuck inside their frameset. Its annoying. They also make DHTML coding really difficult at times.
I really dont have a problem with using frames when there is a use, like Hotmail.
that's just their poor coding/thought though, not a reason to dismiss all framed sites as a piece of crap. Not suggesting you were but it seems all anyone seems to do is diss them.
There are some issues with bookmarking and the like, but I think that is more the fault of the current crop of browsers than the frames because they don't let you chose which frame to bookmark.
I personally like frames. It's people's fault if they have 5 year old browsers not the webmaster's.
Besides, it's much easier to have a static navigation bar than to have to reload every single time. Especially if it has graphics or such.
I used to use Flash, but some users, specifially Mac users for some reason, complained that they couldn't get jack done, so I re-did it using pure CSS/HTML. If their browser doesn't like CSS, it just defaults to the HTML which is pretty nifty IMO
The November 1996 browser statistics from Interse show the following distribution of browser usage:
Netscape 2: 13% of users
Netscape 3: 47% of users
Internet Explorer 3: 28% of users
Other browsers or earlier versions: 13% of users
So in 5 years, MS have completely turned that around. Not bad going.
Reply With Quote
