Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- To frame or not to frame?
August 19, 2003, 3:26 am
rate this thread
started in 1997, learned HTML, and built several personal websites using
I just want to say that my pet peeve regarding HTML is frames. I can't
believe how many sites I still run into using this creaky old dinosaur from
the Netscape 2.0 days.
Frames and sidebars take up valuable reading space on my monitor. I can't
think of a single reason to have them these days. When I'm reading a web
page, I don't need a frame or sidebar of links constantly present.
Links belong at the top and/or bottom of pages. I can't think of a single
modern web browser that doesn't support Ctrl>Home and Ctrl>End to instantly
go to the top and bottom of web pages.
I detest frames, and the best way to get me to click on "Home" is to find
them on a site. I put frames in the same category as "blink."
Look at the professionally designed websites, and see if you see any frames
I know I'm opinionated on the subject, but I was just wondering how the
rest of you feel about this.
Re: To frame or not to frame?
I * love* frames:
- Faster than a SSI or PHP include; Smooth performing
- Menu always visible
- Best solution for a photo album (thumbnails left; enlarged pictures in the
A pity frames are so poorly supported by browsers. Problems like orphan
pages and the impossibility to bookmark specific pages should be solved in
- » Re: resized image in table extends table width to original image width
- — Previous thread in » HTML Markup Language