[thelist] How excusable is the use of frames?

[Peter-Paul Koch]

>Hi PPK
>
>Not sure I agree that fashion is the answer.
>
>Frames were all the rage in 97 when Netscape introduced them because they 
>allowed designers with no server-side smarts to introduce a commonality of 
>navigation with central management.
>
>Then 2 things happened:
>1) The usability issues were investigated and found to be significant
>2) Front end designers learned that there were server-side ways to do the 
>same thing, either via SSIs (even FrontPage allowed includes without 
>knowing any code), or building the whole site as an application.
>
>Both impacted frames' cost/benefit analysis significantly. This was a
>knowledge development, not a fashion one.

I'm not so sure a frames site costs more than a noframes one (we don't 
charge more for it). As to the benefits, you might be right.

>I don't think you'll see a big corporation with a new site which uses
>frames in any significant way. Most big corp sites which do were developed 
>some time ago, before the above were understood.
>
>I have only ever seen 2 models for successfully using frames for the
>benefit of the user:
>
>1) http://www.anytimenow.com/ (although the same argument could be made for 
>any webmail site), to simulate an email client interface, allowing
>users to scroll through subject lines while keeping a static frame for the 
>current email's content

More generally: to keep certain concent in a static position on the screen 
while other content can be scrolled or reloaded. To me this is the prime 
benefit of frames.

Another one, to my mind, is that frames give the user a better feeling of 
continuity. Clicking a link reloads the content frame, but the rest of the 
frames still show the same as before, so that the user is very certain he 
isn't going to another site.

>2) http://www.mcspotlight.org (not there any more), which used frames to 
>present  the live McDonalds site and critique it in context.

Interesting! Didn't know that one.

>Unless you can use one of these models (or find a new one which benefits 
>users, (not site managers) more than the usability issues which frames 
>introduce), then using frames is a bit of a cop-out to development issues.
I agree that you have to think before you use frames (which hasn't always 
happened in the past), but my feeling is that the disadvantages of frames 
are at the moment unduly stressed and the advantages of frames are almost 
forgotten.

I don't want every single site to use frames, but I would like people to pay 
attention to the benefits of frames, too. In the end it's your own decision 
whether to use them or not, and if someone decides to use them, I'd like 
other people to assume there might be a good reason for it.

It's just that the "frames are no good" call seems to have become a dogma, 
and I don't like dogma's.

ppk

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp