[thelist] Alternatives to Frames? (was: Jumping In With Both Feet, Part 2

[Marc Seyon]

At 12/13/2001 02:24 PM, you wrote:
>Mark

...(Marc) :-)


>Although I dont recommend the use of frames in most
>instances, I have some seen some implemetations that
>make more sense to me than others.

Yes, agreed. There are always exceptions to every rule. Not that I'd 
consider not using frames a rule, just a strong suggestion.

>One of the things I don't like about frames is that
>the URL never changes if you use the same frameset
>throughout the site.
>
>But, I have seen some sites that change the frameset
>for each top level content. That way, the URL's
>change.

Yes, that does solve the bookmarking and other such problems. Microsoft's 
does it too.

>I worked on a site that used frames, and while it was
>easy to maintain, users had problems.

As Joel pointed out earlier in this thread, "CSS and tables for layout, SSI 
for code
modularity" pretty much solves this maintenance issue in many cases.

>  For example,
>when we a new navigation element to the left
>navigation bar, we used noscroll. That was fine for
>users with a monitor setting of 800x600..but our
>company used 640x480, and the new content category got
>pushed below the viewing screen. (call it dumb
>implementation..or some would say a dumb user who uses
>640x480..remember though the user is ALWAYS right. )

Poor implementation. Means the user has to scroll a secondary window (the 
frame window) to see vitally important content - navigation elements.

>Yes there are arguments for and against them.
>Nielsen's latest tome shows that only 4% used frames.
>I'd suggest that since the number is so low, and based
>on my experience, don't use frames.

Don't use frames unless you've got a compelling reason to do so, and until 
you've considered the alternatives and repercussions.

Which Nielsen tome are you referring to? The 'Deconstructed Homepages' one? 
Just out of curiosity...

regards.
-marc