What others say about frames
A sampling of online opinions.
Last modified: 6/1/98
Here are links to, and some comments on, writings about frames. Most were found by looking at usableweb.com at http://usableweb.com/items/frames.html:
"For" the use of frames:
David Chan's Perspectives on Frames I (http://www.goldensection.com/perspectives/pillars/970522_desframe.html): David argues that frames can be useful for organizing material, especially if you use the "_top" target, and can help layout due to some quirks in Netscape.
A Case for Frames by Ashworth and Hamilton, Pacific Bell (http://www.uswest.com/web-conference/proceedings/ashworth.html): The authors discuss how a sitemap frame can be used to make the organization of, and navigation through, a site more apparent. Their research showed that such navigation was preferred to the use of the Back button: "...users navigated via the TOC even when they were the most likely to use the Back button, i.e., when accessing pages that they had just previously viewed. This suggests that if users have the option of navigating to pages directly while viewing a site map, they will rarely use the Back button." They also argue use of such "outside the main text area navigation" simplifies and speeds authoring and maintaining material. This article focuses on Intranet use as opposed to Internet usage.
"Against" the use of frames, or "Mixed":
Frames Redux by Terry Sullivan on All Things Web (http://www.pantos.org/atw/35617.html): This article argues against the use of frames, stating that they force the reader to learn different effects of links on different sites, and that normal use of URLs may not work. He does state that "Corporate intranets are one possible candidate for frames-based designs".
Why Frames Suck (Most of the Time) by Jakob Nielsen (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html): This article from 1996 gives many of the arguments against using frames. He also states that it's OK to use frames when the TARGET="_top" attribute is used correctly.
The Frame Tag: A Bit of a Bust, for Now by Whit Andrews in Web Week, June 3, 1996 (http://www.internetworld.com/print/1996/06/03/news/frame.html): This article discusses the problems with the Back button behavior in early browsers. It ends with "But, like others, Smith said, 'My biggest beef is the back button.' Now all he has to do is wait for Navigator 3.0 to replace 1.1 and 2.0 on the PCs of the world, and he'll be back in frames." Reading this in 1998, when 1.1 is all but gone and 2.0 is unusual, this sounds a bit old.
"A Double-Edged Sword: Frames give bad designers more rope to hang themselves with" by Peter Morville in Web Review, March 1996 (http://www.webreview.com/96/03/15/webarch/index.html):This article points out many of the problems with the first use of frames when Netscape 2.0 came out.
The Frame Haters (this is a list on Yahoo): There are a variety of sites discussing frames in a more "passionate" way than the other writings listed here. For example, a tame excerpt from the International I Hate Frames Club (http://wwwvoice.com/hatefrm.html) Members section: "They really suck, and they take forever to download, and the Java ALWAYS has a runtime error in at least *one* of the frames, if not more. I wish they were never invented, and whoever invented them should DIE a painful, painful death! I divorced my last husband because he liked frames!" It seems that most of the comments, other than the "They ate my dog. I dunno, I just don't like em" variety stem from crashing the browser, taking up screen-space, showing ads, the extra time to load on slow dial-up lines, and the nonuse of TARGET="_top" in links causing you to be stuck in a frame. Interestingly, the "Why?" page of the site lists the advantages of frames as: "Ease of navigation" and "Design aid".