Are you anti-frames?

MDLarson

MDLarson

Registered
OK, here's my [company's] website:
http://www.larsonsystems.com

It relies heavily on frames, and (in my opinion), does it effectively. The main problem I've run into was when somebody would want to bookmark a page or link into an individual page (such as from a search engine results page).

I've always rolled my eyes when somebody suggested against using frames—most browsers support them and you have something to look at when you're clicking links (frame-less sites have to reload everything, and you get a "blink" when you switch pages.)

Anyway, what I really want to know is how can I (preferably without removing the frames) get potential customers to what they want to find as soon as possible? Is the interface intuitive or confusing?

Also let me know of any browser quirks that you might have. Screenshots would be cool.
 
Yes, frames are evil. They had their place in the Mid/Late 90s but it's 2002 and people can be a little more creative (no offense :)

Have you looked into using something such as server side includes?
 
I like frames. they do make bookmarking a pain, but I use them on almost every site. i Frames are even better. Too bad some browsers do not support them.

SSI is good to use. but not in all cases. and SSI takes a little more to learn.
 
Originally posted by dricci
Yes, frames are evil. They had their place in the Mid/Late 90s but it's 2002 and people can be a little more creative (no offense :)

Have you looked into using something such as server side includes?
Click to expand...
It's nice to hear your opinion, but maybe you could back it up? Like I said in my original post, I think frames can be advantageous and still have their place, if used correctly (which I think I have). Frames remain a widely supported tool, and serves my purposes wonderfully.

I think I sort of understand the concept of server side includes, but don't know how that would replace the functionality of frames. What are you thinking more specifically?

p.s. Inline frames are nice, but haven't seen their use hardly ever, except in web design class.
 
SSI can kind of create the effect of frames. But they still have to load with every page. frames do not. I think people would use the iFrame a lot more if more browsers supported them. *cough* OmniWeb *cough*. I would be one of those people using them on every site.
 
The most confusing thing for users of frames-based sites is that the page are generally not bookmarkable... and/because teh URL does not change.

This also means it is difficult to send URl's as email links. for example how do you send a link to a Support page if you must first go to the home page and click Support.


So with that said there are some things you can do to make frames a bit better:

1) turn the frame border off (border=0)

2) Any page that will need to be bookmarked or used as a direct link will need its own frameset (Which is going to drive you nuts and become more a maitenance nightmare than just doing away with frames all together...)

3) When you have links to new framesets remember you must ALWAYS use target="_top"... Forget it once and you'll end up with a mess of frames within frames... within frames... within frames... within frames... within frames... within frames... within frames... within frames... within frames...
 
I had frames on my web site, but I removed them.
They are basically a design decision, some sites are good with them, and they work well. I would suggest you make an "entry" page to your site though, that doesnt use frames, so that people can bookmark your site :)

Frames have their place, you just need to know when where and how to use em :D
 
I'm not a fan of frames. I have used them in the past, as they tend to bring ease of design and loading to a site, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages for most sites, I find.

My main issues centre around coding proper onward links, and bookmarks. When my site was a frames-based one, I had lots of base framesets for each part of the site, i.e. music, development, CV, and so on -- it was a maintenance nightmare.

A well-designed site doesn't have to be slow-loading just because it doesn't use frames.

For example, I refer to this site a lot, and it's always quick -- there are standard elements which are pretty much the same on each page, but no frames are used. My site (not live, in development) is much the same. It can be done!

PS Nummi, your site looks good, but commits a minor sin in my eyes: it has a "Click here to enter"-style link on the front page. Lots of sites do this, and I have never understood why. I guess it's a personal thing...

That being said, don't look at my site -- it's awful ;) I'm currently re-designing it and moving hosts as my current one plasters ads everywhere.
 
I looked at your site anyway. :) Please do not use aqua buttons on your new site :) That design is getting old.
 
Eh? There are no aqua buttons on my site. But in any case, did you tell Apple that the look's getting old? :D

The new site looks nothing like what is there now. I like changing from time to time...
 
your site has purple OS X buttons on the bottom of the page. that is what I meant by aqua buttons. It is ok for apple to use them... but half of the mac sites on the internet are using the aqua look.
 
Originally posted by Nummi_G4
your site has purple OS X buttons on the bottom of the page. that is what I meant by aqua buttons. It is ok for apple to use them... but half of the mac sites on the internet are using the aqua look.
Click to expand...
They have nothing to do with Aqua. Nor is the site a "Mac site." Glass-styled graphics are not new, nor are they the exclusive domain of OS X's UI.

I've had a website of one form or another for some 8 years now, and this one is one of the longest-standing designs... it certainly pre-dates OS X -- which is why it's being re-done!

To move on, what's wrong with sites using "Aqua styling" anyway? You say "it's old" yet it's a look presumably promoted on mac.com homepages, and is something that naturally Apple can use all they want.

Interesting argument...
 
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
I would suggest you make an "entry" page to your site though, that doesnt use frames, so that people can bookmark your site :)
Click to expand...
Like a splash page? :D I don't really like splash pages…

Here's a breakdown of my website referrals during June 2001 through April 2002 (11 months):
33,531 Sessions TOTAL - 100%
--------------------
18,964 Blind sessions (no referrer) - 56.6%
13,045 Referred sessions - 38.9%
1,522 Referred sessions (search engine) - 4.5%

Of the referred sessions (search engine and not), 6,847 (47%) are either larsonsystems.com or larsonsystemsinc.com. (We own both domains, and both point to the same IP address) So because of this, I interpreted 6,847 referred sessions to really come from blind sessions.

What this really means is that people type in our website URL directly about 77% of the time, and the remaining 23% come in from search engines and the like. Many times these referrals link directly to our home page, keeping the frameset intact.

Therefore, I consider about 15% of new browsers miss the correct frame context and get right to a single page. For that reason I have placed on the top of each of those pages a link that says "Home" and links right back to the index.html or another appropriate frameset.

I am unable to accurately determine what the user experience is, but we have a Contact Us page with a little section where users can rate the website. 98% come back as "Great" and "OK".

Anyway, thanks for reading all this.
 
not really an animated splash page, something along the lines of what I have on my site, or something like nummi's site, something eyecatching that says "click here to enter" or something like that, so that customers can bookmark you;)
 
Originally posted by benpoole
To move on, what's wrong with sites using "Aqua styling" anyway? You say "it's old" yet it's a look presumably promoted on mac.com homepages, and is something that naturally Apple can use all they want.

Interesting argument...
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with it? Many, many, many people use the aqua look on their sites. too many. Personally, I would want my own design. I thought mac users were the creative ones? eh? Everyone should make a site that looks better than aqua.
Of course apple can use it all they want. it is their look.
 
Originally posted by Nummi_G4
My site uses frames... do you think they are ok?
http://home.datacomm.ch/aftermath/nummi
Click to expand...
Just looked at the site -- and I have a huge blank area to the right of the content. What's up with that?

Visited the Photography section. The table of contents for the section (Set 1) was replaced by a single photo. The contents frame remained the same as the last place (Web design, in this case). The pic seemed to be cut off horizontally, but there is no scroll bar.

Is this all due to IE proprietary code garbage?
 
Originally posted by nkuvu

--Just looked at the site -- and I have a huge blank area to the right of the content. What's up with that?

----Visited the Photography section. The table of contents for the section (Set 1) was replaced by a single photo. The contents frame remained the same as the last place (Web design, in this case). The pic seemed to be cut off horizontally, but there is no scroll bar.

Is this all due to IE proprietary code garbage?
Click to expand...

-- No... the site is only about 600 pixels wide. I wanted it to fit on crappy wintel 640X480 monitors too.

---- you mean it loaded a photo right where you clicked on set 1 ?? a new window should pop up. WTF? WTFing browser are you using? It tested it in IE OS 9 and X. NN 4.7 OS 9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top