bitsifter
friday, september 13

[rant] From our caught flat-footed department, the "I Hate Frames" controversy.

The initial reaction I had to the surfacing of frames in Netscape 2.0 was an immediate need to show other people. Not sure why, but the need was there.The excitement: "Hey! Look what I can do!" The reaction: "That's great! What do you do with them?" The answer: "Well, I'm not sure..."

Netscape 2.0 was simply too good to be true. Plug-ins, Java, and Frames. The world was only beginning to figure out what a web page was and Netscape was already well on it's way to offering it's version of what a web application would be. As they were the only significant player in the market, the web community was devouring and displaying every new Netscape feature, but frames weren't ready for prime time...

The #1 problem with frames is navigation. When working within a framed web page, the concept of the "Back" button changes and Netscape ignored this in their first implementation. For example, if you were to click the Index link at the bottom of this page, the frame to the left will update. Clicking "Back" in Netscape 2.0 would incorrectly take you to the previously visited website -- all you wanted to do was see what was previously displayed in left frame. Netscape fixed this navigation "bug" in the 3.0 version of their browsers.

Much of the rest of the complaints about frames rises from a lack of proper understanding of their usage. This will scare people who equate HTML with word processing, but creating a usable implementation of frames is similar to writing good code -- design, implement, and test. A frameless web page is just good content, a framed web page becomes a web application.

As it stands now, all the bickering is irrelevant.When NetObjects Fusion "choose" to not include frames as part of their web publishing package, their reasoning "most people use frames to create a navigation metaphor for their sites" is solid. The role of frames have become that of a table of contents and until we've got absolute positioning via HTML, most designers will continue to use tables to organize their pages as frames become the "GeeWhiz" feature that could've been.

Bitsifter Tips for Frames

-- Resolution Kills: a different resolutions, the visual layut of your framed page may change drastically -- often becoming unreadable. Netscape warns that using pixels to size your frame are dangerous since "since the size of the viewer's window can and does vary substantially", but I've found them to be the best way to ensure the page retains it's format at varying resolutions.

-- Targets Are Your Friends: targets allow the designer to control which content appears in what frame. The proper use of targeting windows is key to giving the impression that you have a clue what you are doing.

-- Explore the Future: Netscape 3.0 and Internet Explorer 3.0 add a new twist, the borderless frame. The Digest uses them, so should you.

[rant] When word leaked out that Microsoft was paying web content providers to promote Internet Explorer 3.0, it was obvious fodder for Microsoft haters around the world. Arguments raged about how the Wall Street Journal, a bastion of capitalism, could support the "biggest software monopoly" in the world. I likened it to friends like this, "How would you feel if Sony paid HBO to give free cable to folks who bough Sony TVs?" Most of the intelligent responses were "I'd probably buy a JVC and watch Cinemax". The point is: Microsoft can spend as much money as a they like, people are going to choose the better product.

What is more interesting about the situation is the depth of hatred which many people feel towards Microsoft.It is a strange paradox that many while Silicon Valley professionals hate Microsoft, they strive to build companies that someday might have what Microsoft already has in spades, control over their destiny.