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

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!@rob86Frames are considered ugly simply because they had a border for most websites back in the day. Designers and developers did not take the effort to remove the border because they enabled users to re-size the frames, but having a grey vertical line in the middle of the website is hardly aesthetic. In terms of usability, frames are quite good in that they download common content only once, they can display pages from different URLs and they enable you to update a single file to reflect the content in multiple 'views'.The problem with using frames is that when you save a URL, you are actually saving the initial location to which all of the frames point so if you are browsing a website and intend to return to the pages that you were looking at, you would have to navigate through the website and find them again. In the alternate case, if you bookmarked a single page, you would lose the navigation menus and would not be able to locate related content on the website.@truefusionWhen a search engine picks up a web page through its crawler, it attempts to find links to other web pages on your website using the hyperlinks that it finds on that page. If the search engine does find an 'inner' page, it would have no links to the rest of the webpage and therefore it cannot discover the other pages on the website. Sure, the problem can be solved by introducing meta tags, but that would be something that every website owner or web master would have to implement, and that could take a couple of years for it to be ubiquitous - think of XFN (XHTML Friends Network) today and you wouldn't find many website owners or web masters aware of it, though you would find many websites that do use it.@nolanTrue, frames aren't history, but they are not used as they once were. If you look up a router's web-based administration software, the chances are that it does use frames for navigation. I wonder if somebody reading this thread can find and post an example of a frame-based navigation for a website for you to look at. IFrames are a more convenient form of using frames for loading content from other domains as a means of getting around the security imposed by most web browsers today. It's funny how they would create a security restriction that most web developers find very annoying and leave a workaround that creates the same problems that it was intended to solve.@allI know some of you may point me to server-side includes (SSIs) and script-based solutions to include common content instead of including the common content within frames, but that would be dependent on server-side functionality - the server would need the parsers or plugins/modules/entensions installed to provide the desired functionality and there's no guarantee that every web hosting provider would have the plugin/module/extension especially if you're hunting around for a free web hosting provider.I've mentioned about some of the other advantages, disadvantages and issues with using frames in my post earlier in this thread.

[nolan 0]

I'm not sure you read my post thoroughly. iframes are a type of framing (hence "inline frames", their name). Too many people disassociate iframes and frames from one another, when in fact they rely on many of the same underlying functions of a browser and are both considered members of the frame family. iframes are still very much in use, and are in fact used more frequently today than in the past.

In addition, and as I mentioned, iframes are not deprecated in the HTML 5 spec as they are for XHTML, so they're going to be perfectly valid for the future.

@nolan
True, frames aren't history, but they are not used as they once were. If you look up a router's web-based administration software, the chances are that it does use frames for navigation. I wonder if somebody reading this thread can find and post an example of a frame-based navigation for a website for you to look at. IFrames are a more convenient form of using frames for loading content from other domains as a means of getting around the security imposed by most web browsers today. It's funny how they would create a security restriction that most web developers find very annoying and leave a workaround that creates the same problems that it was intended to solve.

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!@nolanI don't really know of many websites out there that use IFrames, which are indeed frames. If I remember right, IFrames started off as an element initially supported only by Microsoft Internet Explorer and then adopted by other web browsers. Apparently, the Internet Explorer product planning team isn't as innovative as they once were.I haven't had to use iFrames or even regular frames as long as I had server-side scripting, but for client-side scripting, I did have problems with accessing resources across domains due to the web browser restrictions that most browsers enforce. iFrames are the way to circumvent the problem and although it does not make the security problem go away, it does make the problems introduced by security go away.This whole thing about web browser security and differences in settings just might make web operating systems more of a reality if somebody did take the effort to push it to becoming a de facto standard.

[nolan 0]

Hi again,

Iframes are used all over the place for advanced and semi-advanced web apps. At the top of my head, Gmail and Google Wave both use iframes, not to mention this bulletin board (the shoutbox is an iframe). In some places, Yahoo uses iframes, Bing uses them in image results (I believe Google does, too). Amazon and eBay use iframes... The list goes on and on.

In short, you do know of a lot of places out there that use iframes, sometimes it's just not apparent/significant that they do

@nolan
I don't really know of many websites out there that use IFrames, which are indeed frames.

[wayne 0]

Hi again,
Iframes are used all over the place for advanced and semi-advanced web apps. At the top of my head, Gmail and Google Wave both use iframes, not to mention this bulletin board (the shoutbox is an iframe). In some places, Yahoo uses iframes, Bing uses them in image results (I believe Google does, too). Amazon and eBay use iframes... The list goes on and on.

In short, you do know of a lot of places out there that use iframes, sometimes it's just not apparent/significant that they do

I think the point has been made.

Lol... We so have to be careful about the correction of fledglings who are contributing a lesser informed view so as to pursue their hosting entitlement..., and who, through intimidation about being corrected or shot down everytime a comment is made by them, will take their hosting dream elsewhere.

Respectfully, this particular thread didn't strike me as being one for intense technical debate at the time I made my original comment about Frames being history... in fact, the original post by the thread starter in my view was referring to the blocky 3-page frames structure as a webpage format.

There is a myriad of sites /forums /threads where technialities can be argued - but let us not lose the plot completely through domination with our own superior knowledge. Indeed, I could comment in many cases at a technical level possibly greater than your own - but is it in the best interests of the thread or Xisto for me to do so?

Probably not.

Interesting discussions here, nonetheless.

[nolan 0]

Hello.

To begin, I've made more than enough posts to become hosted. I'm not interested in having another hosting account (I pay for my hosting), but we'll disregard that as a logical fallacy. When it comes to correcting inaccuracies that could mislead others, yes, I feel a drive to do so.

As for contributing "lesser informed views", my view is accurate and testable. You, on the other hand, have contributed absolutely nothing of consequence in your post. True "fledglings" are those who do not yet have their own ideas to contribute.

Moving along, you eluded to me being corrected. Please demonstrate what precisely that correction is (for the benefit of thread viewers) and provide evidence supporting the "correction". (That's what should be done when arguing a point, after all.)

Finally, as to you believing your level of technical knowledge exceeds my own, that's highly debatable, although I truly couldn't care less. I did not claim to know more than you or anyone; I merely made an (accurate) correction to a statement that could dissuade new developers from making use of a technology that is perfectly valid to use and widely adopted by established organizations. I've also provided a list of organizations to back up that statement.

I hope that helps to clarify any constructs that might have initially evaded your grasp.

I think the point has been made.
Lol... We so have to be careful about the correction of fledglings who are contributing a lesser informed view so as to pursue their hosting entitlement..., and who, through intimidation about being corrected or shot down everytime a comment is made by them, will take their hosting dream elsewhere.

Respectfully, this particular thread didn't strike me as being one for intense technical debate at the time I made my original comment about Frames being history... in fact, the original post by the thread starter in my view was referring to the blocky 3-page frames structure as a webpage format.

There is a myriad of sites /forums /threads where technialities can be argued - but let us not lose the plot completely through domination with our own superior knowledge. Indeed, I could comment in many cases at a technical level possibly greater than your own - but is it in the best interests of the thread or Xisto for me to do so?

Probably not.

Interesting discussions here, nonetheless.

[wayne 0]

We will doubtlessly cling to our own opinions. LolCheers!

[Quatrux 4]

What are you talking here about iframes?This shoutbox on IPB Xisto forums are using pure html+css and no iframes, same is with gmail, you can make the scrollbar using CSS very easily using overflow: scroll; on an element..Besides, if it's possible, iframes is considered a bad practice. Iframes is not indexed by a search engine as it's an inline frame in a browser and is showing another url, the only thing it's good is for ads which we all usually block, also using iframes doesn't work in a text browser.Iframes can be good sometimes to make something quick, but if it's possible, I think other methods could be done to get the same result, by css or at least by javascript and maybe even server side by php if needed.The biggest mistake with iframes, is that it doesn't need to be used as part of the content, but just as a piece of the whole content, so it's best to use it to embed something into your content, sometimes some content, usually advertisements.

[nolan 0]

[1] Quatrux: Do yourself a favor and take a look at the script powering the shoutbox: http://forums.xisto.com/jscripts/shoutbox/shoutbox.js. While you're at it, bring up a 'Find' dialog box and type in iframe. If you'd like, you can do the same thing for the Gmail source.

Case in point: What you said is inaccurate, and could have been verified in a couple of seconds if you wanted to double-check for yourself, rather than simply trying to shoot what I said down ineffectively and without any prompt to do so.

[2] As another correction so that future viewers don't get misled: you -cannot- always use CSS to accomplish the same things you can accomplish with iframes. For example, you cannot create an upload form using css that doesn't redirect away from the current page without relying on Flash/Java/etc if you don't want to use frames/objects. You can use AJAX+CSS to accomplish some of the things an iframe can, but not all of them (efficiently, at least), although that also relies on the viewer having Javascript enabled.

For your other point, it is true that iframe contents are not indexed by search engines, although this is only if another direct link is not provided to the same url elsewhere on the site. This usually doesn't matter due to the fact that it's very rare that you want the content indexed (e.g., if the iframe is a chat box, an upload form, or a data aggregator). If you do want it to be indexed, chances are high that it can act as a stand-alone webpage and should be linked to directly elsewhere.

Also, for your point about text browsers, alternative solutions (when includes aren't an option) work just as badly or worse. Try loading up an AJAX-intensive website in a text browser and see what happens.

[3] Using iframes is -not- a bad practice unless they are used for the wrong reasons. As I've mentioned, you -cannot- always achieve the same results through other methods. When using them, you -should- consider accessibility issues and you -should- consider better alternatives, -if- possible, although that is not always the case.

[1] This shoutbox on IPB Xisto forums are using pure html+css and no iframes, same is with gmail, you can make the scrollbar using CSS very easily using overflow: scroll; on an element..
[2] Besides, if it's possible, iframes is considered a bad practice. Iframes is not indexed by a search engine as it's an inline frame in a browser and is showing another url, the only thing it's good is for ads which we all usually block, also using iframes doesn't work in a text browser.

[3] Iframes can be good sometimes to make something quick, but if it's possible, I think other methods could be done to get the same result, by css or at least by javascript and maybe even server side by php if needed. The biggest mistake with iframes, is that it doesn't need to be used as part of the content, but just as a piece of the whole content, so it's best to use it to embed something into your content, sometimes some content, usually advertisements.

[Quatrux 4]

@ nolan

I just again viewed the html+css/javascript source of this forum, I found the HTML for the shoutbox, I just can't see any <iframe> tag? Where did you find it?

HTML

<div id='shoutbox-global-wrapper'> ... </div>

And the rows for the user text who shout in that box is a a div with a table with td and tr with some span HTML elements styled with CSS..

The code you gave for shoutbox javascript proves that it's done with javascript and I've found some ..._iframe strings and as I understand it's a class name, or an id name or an varibale/object name, for example:

shoutbox.prototype.keydown_handler_iframe = function(e)...or...shoutbox.get_obj(shoutbox.editor_id+'_iframe').style.display = '';

So can you show me exactly where it's used in the shoutbox? why does this shoutbox need an iframe for if the source of the shoutbox is in the current page html and I can't see javascript generating an iframe from that file..

Strange, somehow the scrollbar is an iframe, but I can't find anywhere where it's made..
Edited January 4, 2010 by Quatrux (see edit history)

[Quatrux 4]

No, it seems it doesn't, it seems that when using CSS overflow: scroll, it also lets to press right mouse button on the scrollbar which makes an option of opening the frame in a new tab, but it doesn't open it as an iframe or a regular frame, because it isn't in another url, but is in the same page.And I can't open the shoutbox in another window, because it's in the same content, it's a html+css/javascript and I guess AJAX shoutbox.. or am I still wrong?(Sorry to double post, can't Edit for the second time)And yes, GMail is using frames, I guess it's a good choice to use frames on a service like webmail to reduce server load and etc.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Quatrux (see edit history)

[nolan 0]

They don't have to be explicitly declared in the document to be created (that is, the elements can be created through Javascript). Additionally, Javascript includes share a namespace, meaning that include A gets to use the methods of include B and so forth. You can look through the bulletin boards include files if you want to see how anything related to it is created.

 

The source for the main Gmail interface (since you mentioned it before) can be accessed via https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=mail&passive=true&rm=false&continue=http://mail.google.com/mail/&scc=1&ltmpl=googlemail&emr=1.

 

You didn't mention any of my other points.

 

As a general note to thread viewers, you can see what the W3C HTML 5 draft has to say about iframes (not deprecated) here: http://w3c.github.io/html/

 

Strange, somehow the scrollbar is an iframe, but I can't find anywhere where it's made..

[kshan 0]

Hello!!The Frameset Web page itself typically doesn?t contain content like other Web pages do. Most do contain enough content to tell the user that a frames-capable browsers is needed to view the page and to provide a link to a page that doesn?t require one. This is sometimes necessary on the internet, as not all browsers support frames. The controversy over frames centers on user interface preferences and complexity. Some people don?t like frames. Frames do, however, raise the level of complexity a bit, as now multiple web pages are interacting with the user at the same time. This is what makes frames an architecturally significant element.

[dakuni 0]

The answer to this question is css and html. CSS and html have recently been updated a lot and have shown new ways to use tags instead of iframe. Another reason is that some web browsers don't support it thus you will have to code a lot. Another reason is that it is hard to use iframe and it uses some extra bandwith