Why Doesn't Anyone Like Frames Anymore? The life and death of the humble html frame.

[rob86 2]

I remember when almost every website around used frames to organize their websites. Now you very rarely see a website with frames. Why? Is it because with the increase in average internet speed frames are no longer really necessary or beneficial? Are they considered ugly and obtrusive? I find frames rather useful on my slow connection and considered using them on my website, but it seems like it would be out of place and scare away users in today's frame-less world wide web.

[truefusion 3]

There's some talk about search engines not "liking" frames, but i'm not entirely sure what frames do to search engines. But there are better ways to achieve similar effects. For example, when using frames, the navigation is often placed on its own, separate page. What does this do? What if you want to view the page in a new window or tab? The navigation is now gone. The better way of going about it is to use server-side scripting for a template system. You could also use AJAX to dynamically include content from other pages into the page that is currently being viewed. But what about disabled users? Can the software that helps them browse the Internet work well with frames? But this concerns desktop and laptop computers; what about handhelds? How would frames be useful for those?On an aesthetic level, the border (though can be "removed") makes things look ugly or old. Some websites still use frames, though these pages (at least now-a-days) are often pages that not many people would be interested in. There are probably other reasons why not to like frames for your website, but i can't think of anything else right now.

[mm22 0]

frames are no longer really necessary or beneficial? Are they considered ugly and obtrusive?

I think nowadays most things that can be done with frames can also be done using CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), which allow for greater flexibility. When I first looked at web design frames looked to me like the natural solution to placing content where you want on the page. Another obvious way to do that is by using tables and encapsulate our content in there. Well, both ways are now deprecated by most designer because they say slow down rendering of the page and, in the case of frames, might be interpreted differently by different browsers.

 

However cross browser compatibility is also an issue when using CSS. So I think the real disadvantage of frames is that you end up with several pages having the same URL which will affect your ranking in search engines and also the possibility of bookmarking every single page of your site. That is because the URL may be that of the html page containing the frameset and encapsulating other html pages. As the content changes in one of the frames this does not reflect on to the URL seen in the browser address bar which will continue displaying the address of the frameset.

 

I have found a few websites that still use frames and I think in some cases they really help or at least simplify design. One of them is http://zhongwen.com/ where frames are used to independently move sections of the page up and down, which is particularly useful for a dictionary. Yet in this website it is not possible to directly address one particular word in the dictionary, when browsing to different words the URL will keep on displaying the URL of the homepage. This limits the functionality of the dictionary.

[rob86 2]

One of the reasons I saw somewhere for not using frames was because many users don't like being in the dark as to what url they're on. Copy and pasting the url becomes more difficult, bookmarking doesn't work correctly and some people even feel uncomfortable browsing a website where the full url is hidden.There seem to be lots of alternatives to frames now which is probably why they're becoming out dated but for a simple website with a specific purpose, like that dictionary, I think frames could still be beneficial.

[Nameless_ 1]

I don't know much about frames with my basic internet website knowledge, but I know that most people find frames hard to manage and difficult to incooperate into the site. Also, as frames are actually two different URL and web pages stuck together in the same page, search engines will find it hard to crawl over it (as mentioned before in a previous post), and some people and users of the site might also find it difficult and annoying with a things stuck on the sides or on the top of the page that doesn't move at all...And I think most users and visitors to your site don't really care about whether your site has a frame or not. If a frame works well, well, it's a Bonus, or people might not really care anyway. If it doesn't, it's plain annoying, and if there aren't frames at all, well, it's the same as a good working frame. So why go through all the bother making frames and all that when people don't really care about good functioning-properly frames?

[rayzoredge 2]

I used to be a big frame person when I first started doing HTML, but I've always hated those fugly gray borders. Never knew you could remove them, but there was always the problem of users only bookmarking the frameset page and not the content that he or she wanted, so every time they access the bookmark, they're taken to the main page. It was also a pain in having to set things up in the correct cells and the framesets didn't always show up correctly in browsers... but then again, that's the struggle we have with web design anyway. At least with CSS and JavaScript, we can define a style sheet and a navigation bar that's written the same way every time AND it avoids the fugly border bars, the scroll bars, and the bookmarking/URL deal. From a web design and user perspective, frames had their use until Web 2.0 showed its prettier face.

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!HTML frames were great back in the early days of the Internet, but the web browsers did not handle them very well. If you tried to save a web page containing frames, the web browser would only save the parent page containing the frameset divisions but not the individual child pages loaded within the frames. You had to manually right-click on the frame and save it, which means that you have to know that a website was using frames to be able to save the page. People back then were not as computer-savvy as they are today, so something that was confusing or hard to use went the way of the dinosaurs.Also, if you landed on a page through a search engine, it would be missing the site navigation so the users would not know how to browse through the other pages of the site. Some people would try taking off the page filename from the URL in an attempt to find the default page, but when the websites had subfolders this would simply lead to a directory listing or even a Not Authorized error for the web servers that had directory listing disabled.I did find the handling of back and front navigation by web browsers for websites with frames quite impressive though. If you changed the page loaded in a frame and clicked the back button, you would see the browser only load the previous page of that particular frame, rather than loading the previous website considering that the parent page of the website hadn't changed.Regards

[mm22 0]

Also, if you landed on a page through a search engine, it would be missing the site navigation so the users would not know how to browse through the other pages of the site. Some people would try taking off the page filename from the URL in an attempt to find the default page, but when the websites had subfolders this would simply lead to a directory listing or even a Not Authorized error for the web servers that had directory listing disabled.

Yes that was undoubtedly a big problem, not easily solved unless something was done by search engines to prevent indexing single frames. But then again you would lose information in that case as the URL would be the same for many different pages.

I did find the handling of back and front navigation by web browsers for websites with frames quite impressive though. If you changed the page loaded in a frame and clicked the back button, you would see the browser only load the previous page of that particular frame, rather than loading the previous website considering that the parent page of the website hadn't changed.

Didn't know that, surely smart of browser designers. After all frames were one of the first concept being introduced into web page design so early browsers must have been well prepared for them.

[nolan 0]

Hi. To answer your question, you have to make an important distinction first: that is, the difference between frames and iframes. Using either -could- have negative consequences on your search rankings, but iframes allow web capabilities to be expanded in ways that CSS cannot always compensate for (I say this because someone recommended using CSS as an alternative). As an example for a good use of iframes, you can build an upload form that loads in an iframe. This way when the user submits a file for uploading, the primary page never has to refresh or change locations.

Back to the search issue, there is a reason that frames (that aren't superficial, such as uploading form iframes) can affect your search rankings. This is due to the fact that your content is divided across two independent pages, which are in turn indexed separately by the search engine. This means that instead of getting "points" for the combined contents and page relevance of the one page displayed to visitors, you end up with two individually indexed pages that may or may not seem relevant to your site's purpose when taken out of context.

Furthermore, this isn't touching on some of the accessibility issues that can arise from using frames (e.g., for people who use screen readers).

Hope that clarifies.

I remember when almost every website around used frames to organize their websites. Now you very rarely see a website with frames. Why? Is it because with the increase in average internet speed frames are no longer really necessary or beneficial? Are they considered ugly and obtrusive? I find frames rather useful on my slow connection and considered using them on my website, but it seems like it would be out of place and scare away users in today's frame-less world wide web.

[contactskn 2]

Dear friends with the increasing use of dynamic server side languages like PHP and databases etc. use the frames are decreasing a lot. More over we also have CSS for playing with the looks of the website etc. So the need which was fulfilled by frames previously is now replaces easily and more professionally with these new languages and tools to develop web sites. More over if it is right that it is not search engine friendly then why should developers use it anymore as everyone wants their respected sites to get a good position in search engines. ?

[mahesh2k 0]

Some reasons why i don't like Frames:1) Search engines hates frames2) Interface is annoying because of that.3) If navbar is in frame and fails to load then it's hard to navigate without it.4) Site looks too childish with such interface(old geocities and tripod sites were like that).5) Not professional look in any way6) not suitable for dynamic websites and looks more of clutter7) Accessibility issues in many ways. (useit & other user interface sites reports say so).These are some reasons why i hate frames. I don't like to waste time on sites which are making their interface with frames these days. It's just plain annoying.

[wayne 0]

Frames were an important part of the evolution in Web Design... but alas they are now history. CSS offers the best options in achieving page layout now, and is worth knowing if you dabble in page design and layout...

[Quatrux 4]

Frames were great in the days servers weren't so popular and a lot of people did not have server side languages, cgi and etc. they couldn't use shtml to include something, so everything was done with html, using frames you could have a header, a menu and the content, otherwise you needed to have the same menu and header in all yout html files, so when changing something in menu, you needed to go all over the pages to fix it, later to check every page if you fixed it, so frames were something wonderful for an average guy having a site with no access to shtml and c, now when everyone can get a host with php, mysql, asp and ruby and etc. for free, they can avoid using those ugly frames, which usually were annoying, when opening links in different window or tab, you always were loosing the menu and header. Also, on search engines, you couldn't index everything normally..So frames Today are pointless, same as in html font tag, center tag and etc. are pointless, there is no need for them anymore, things are getting much more perfect and better, even though still with lots of problems.

[Xalor 0]

(on a completely random note, most indian forum posters say Dear Friend [wonder why]) Well all I could say about frames is that they didn't really allow people to see the content properly. When you embed a frame, (is it called embedding?), you basically took another page and stuck it in the same one. That wasn't a clean design at all. Search engines get annoyed by this simply because it indexes the url, not the actual frame, so when you google for yourself, instead of getting the content you expected you're redirected to the main page. As well as that you aren't able to use proper navigation, because it simulates dynamically created pages, and with XHTML/CSS you can simply use divs and move around containers, and now you really don't need to use frames anymore. There's still possibilities with it but if you really need it just use the framset dtd/declartion or if you use the HTML doctype, just skip the strict end, I mean if you're using HTML Strict, no point in not switching XHTML with proper closing, right? With advances in AJAX and PHP you can actually generate these pages dynamically and this way the pages stay forever!

[nolan 0]

Frames are history now? That's funny, because the very forum you're posting this message on uses frames. (Notice the shoutbox?) Not only that, but the HTML 5 specifications expand the functionality of iframes (see: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/).

Frames are not history, nor are they inherently bad for every use case. Several large websites utilize iframes (inline frames) for different purposes, and a lot of powerful web apps rely on frames to achieve offline app-like capabilities that it would be either inefficient or unintelligent to attempt with other techniques.

In some cases, however, iframes can be replaced with objects (with some distinctions). You can look at what the W3C specifications say about the differences for more info. HTML files embedded as objects tend to be less cross-browser compatible, however. No matter which way you go you have compatibility/accessibility issues to consider.

Frames were an important part of the evolution in Web Design... but alas they are now history. CSS offers the best options in achieving page layout now, and is worth knowing if you dabble in page design and layout...