[thelist] what are your opinions on using frames?

[Gary McPherson]

thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org wrote:
>>>> I find some places where frames are especially valuable
>>> 
>>> Like what?
> 
> Exactly! The only thing I've heard is "So that users can have
> all navigation elems available all the time..." To which I'd
> say "Why?". I am not saying there's absolutely no value in
> that, but if you have a well architected nav structure, if
> the site is not too deep, then how is this helpful?
> 
> 
> but Jeff is right - for applications - absolutely. I should
> have made it clearer I was asking with regards to a simple
> website (Our own CMS uses frames and they have been quite
> indispensable in achieving a desktop-like interface
> http://www.livestoryboard.com/Products/Screen_shots.html)

Normally, this is something I'd struggle through on my own, but seeing
as it was a current hot topic, I thought I'd put it out to you guys.

I'm taking over the development of a community site which is currently
using a rather crude frames implementation like this:

+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3 | Link 4 | Link 5 |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|							   |
|							   |
|							   |
|			CONTENT			   |
|							   |
|			 AREA				   |
|							   |
|							   |
|							   |
|							   |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3 | Link 4 | Link 5 |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

As it stands, there's no real order or structure to the links in the
frames. The proposed redesign is more along these lines:

+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Main 1 | Main 2 | Main 3 | Main 4 | Main 5 |
+........+........+........+........+........+
| Sub 1  | Sub 2  | Sub 3  | Sub 4  | Sub 5  |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|							   |
|							   |
|							   |
|			CONTENT			   |
|							   |
|			 AREA				   |
|							   |
|							   |
|							   |
|							   |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| User 1 | User 2 | User 3 | User 4 | User 5 |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

The "sub" links would be in the top frame beneath the main nav links and
update according to the current area, while the user links at the bottom
are ones  specifically requested to be permanently available as they
lead to the most used personal areas of the site. Now, ignoring the
limitations of my ASCII-art masterpiece, it's clear that there is a
notable wastage of screal-estate and I've been trying to figure out if
their isn't a better way to represent the navigational structure
efficiently across the wide range of user resolutions. Part of my
dilemma for being unsure of ditching frames altogether is the fact that
some areas are sourced externally as well as internally, so it limits
what I might otherwise be able to do using server-side includes.

Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions welcomed.

Gary