SitePoint.com

Shem · Feb 21, 2004, 18:15

I stopped using frames a few years ago, mainly because I had questions about problems that arise when search engines find individual frames that belong to framesets. Also I wondered if they are "out of style" and considered bad practice. (Irrational belief?).

Now I have a client whose site really seems it would work much better if frames were employed.... there is a complicated graphics intensive Fireworks table on the home page and I need to be doing database queries with several possible iterations inside of <td> tags that will be very very tricky to implement inside of this beautiful table.

So frames may be the answer....put the database results in a central frame and all the pretty stuff on the outside.

So my question is.... are frames generally discouraged nowadays, or is it advisable to still use them in situations like these?

Ravedesigns · Feb 21, 2004, 18:26

Hey Shem,

Like you said, I would consider frames out of style and a bad practice nowadays.

How about using Server Side Includes?

I use them often for navigation and other site-wide elements (stuff frames were always used for) and boy are they a time saver!

Steve

Shem · Feb 21, 2004, 19:15

Yes, I am using server side includes for navigation, etc. already.

My problem is that my database queries.....they iterate through table data rows so that they have the potential to break up neatly designed Fireworks tables too much.

I know how, of course to minimize the damage by carefully designing slices by aligning bottom edges of certain ones....but it gets really tricky with the design I'm currently using. There are many slices on the side colums of my design, and the database results will show in the middle.

Shem · Feb 21, 2004, 19:29

This is what I'm talking about in terms of the layout and the potential problem with tables and the database query. The center would require more rows than the sides.

http://www.mediabreeze.com/images/layout.jpg

<edit> Although, you know what....after posting the layout, I just realized that I should probably not use table data rows for the results...just some sort of bulleted list divided by horizontal rules or something. </edit>

mmj · Feb 21, 2004, 19:54

Frames still have their place today. In fact, they're standards-compliant, using XHTML 1.0 Frameset. This gives them more validity than, for instance, using tables for layout, because tables were never a standard way of doing page layout.

There are problems with using frames, such as problems with navigation (links not opening in the expected frame, back button not working) but these problems can be worked around if the site is coded correctly. For example, you shouldn't set external links to open in a frame - they should open in _top.

Many of the main complaints people have about frames is because of badly designed pages where external links open in a frame, etc.

On the other hand, using frames where they are not necessary or where it doesn't make sense is not a good idea, because frames are more still a little more complicated to use. You should use frames only when there is a reason to do so. The places I've most seen frames recently have been administration control panels, and other control-panel style applications.

The main benefit of frames is that a certain part of the page only needs to be loaded once, and not re-sent with each page request.

The effect of frames can all be done with CSS now, but doing so loses this benefit.

Shem · Feb 21, 2004, 20:08

Thanks.! A big benefit when an Advisor answers your post! Thanks for the perspective because I did not know that they were in fact, more compliant than tables. I keep hearing about how tables are not really meant to be for page layout, etc. It's funny because so much of graphics slicing relies on tables.

Based on your post, if I have to use tables I won't feel like it's a big faux pas anymore. (at least not this year!)

platinum · Feb 21, 2004, 20:55

Why don't you slice up your design by hand, rather than using fireworks inbuilt tool. Most "layout" problems can be pretty easily fixed, but when one element relies on spacer images, and 10 other surrounding images to keep it in place things are a little messy.

That's the advantage of taking an extra 20-30mins to hand silce and where applicable use CSS to craft your pages differently to fireworks (fairly ugly) slicing job. Where pages need to be versitile and keeping content from relying on each other for space on a page is where CSS really helps you out.

Show us the layout if you need to, maybe can offer some advice?

Shem · Feb 21, 2004, 21:21

This is the general concept:

http://www.mediabreeze.com/images/layout.jpg

I don't know how to use CSS for layout yet. If it's really superior, I will learn it. The only thing is that whatever I build needs to be "modifiable" by other designers with modest skills.

My client may also be modifiying what I build with Macromedia Contribute. It seems with CSS that it's all code based and would be harder for newbies to go in and modify after me. But please let me know if I'm wrong.

I'm always game for learning new stuff. If there's a good small list of reasons I should switch over to CSS I'll do it.

platinum · Feb 21, 2004, 22:20

I was wondering specifically what the problem was with the database'd info breaking your layout?

But anyway, no you don't *need* to swap over to total CSS layouts, but using it inline with your tables can reduce the chances of things breaking.

Like rather than having your databased results listed in cells, you can use a list (styled with css) to create the same result.

Dan Grossman · Feb 21, 2004, 22:22

Didn't SP say that they don't have links in the forums open in new windows because the 'target' attribute isn't valid XHTML? How do you do XHTML compliant frames then without specifying the target frame for each link?

LeoWebDesign · Feb 22, 2004, 07:30

Looks like I am a little late but I am here so I'll say it too...

I only use frames when the client absolutely insists and I can't talk them out if it. (black backgrounds too!). They usually ask for it because of a site they have seen.

mmj · Feb 22, 2004, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Grossman

Didn't SP say that they don't have links in the forums open in new windows because the 'target' attribute isn't valid XHTML? How do you do XHTML compliant frames then without specifying the target frame for each link?

The target attribute is valid in the "Frameset" variant of HTML and XHTML. It's deprecated in "Strict"

jamesxv7 · Feb 22, 2004, 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

This is the general concept:

http://www.mediabreeze.com/images/layout.jpg

I don't know how to use CSS for layout yet. If it's really superior, I will learn it. The only thing is that whatever I build needs to be "modifiable" by other designers with modest skills.

My client may also be modifiying what I build with Macromedia Contribute. It seems with CSS that it's all code based and would be harder for newbies to go in and modify after me. But please let me know if I'm wrong.

I'm always game for learning new stuff. If there's a good small list of reasons I should switch over to CSS I'll do it.

This thread (one of my fav) maybe could help you. http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143801

I think you can use CSS to build your layout even using all the queries you need.

Shem · Feb 23, 2004, 03:16

My only question with CSS is that with complicated, tightly constructed Fireworks graphics in a web site, how do you position everything visually? With CSS, don't you have to build it all in code without being able to see the result until the end?

And when you do this, how easy will it be for a designer working with me to go in and make changes?

jamesxv7 · Feb 23, 2004, 07:10

Try using absolute divs. Also you can fix your images as backgrounds and control them using the X and Y values.

Shem · Feb 23, 2004, 08:42

I tried using absolute divs. In fact, that is the easiest to manage. But there is a MAJOR problem with that.... 1st of all I don't think I can guarantee it will look same on every computer.

Mac users, from what I'm told, will possibly get screwy results with it. I cannot afford to take that risk.

Dan Grossman · Feb 23, 2004, 08:44

I'm sure you can do it with relative divs too, using images as backgrounds again and specifying widths and heights for the divs.

Shem · Feb 23, 2004, 08:54

In your God training school, what do they say about absolute positioning of layers and Mac users? Are there any Mac users out there? I don't have one so I can't test on it, but I hear absolute positioning can be a few pixels off if designed on a PC and viewed on the Mac.

Dan Grossman · Feb 23, 2004, 08:55

God training school? There's a site out there that will take screenshots of your site on Mac computers for you, but I'll let you find it for that.

drzoid · Feb 23, 2004, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Grossman

God training school?

I'd say Shem refers to the class you are attending according to your user title

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Grossman

There's a site out there that will take screenshots of your site on Mac computers for you, but I'll let you find it for that.

http://www.browsercam.com

Dan Grossman · Feb 23, 2004, 09:31

No, not Browsercam, it's for Mac only and is free and much faster.

http://www.danvine.com/icapture/

Shem · Feb 23, 2004, 09:42

Wow...browsercam is a godsend! (No pun intended).

Also, the danvine.com....awesome. I really appreciate the help. I think this goes to show that whatever you want in development is available if you ask the right questions. Thanks to Dan, drzoid, mmj, platinum, and everyone else whose helped out with this thread. I think doing the multiple checks like on browsercam and danvine is the ultimate solution for what I need.

Also, this layerpositioning test seems to disprove the theory I heard that the layer positioning would not work on Mac. I tried this absolute layer positioning test on the Mac via danvine.com and it looks identical on Mac and PC.

http://www.pmob.co.uk/temp/positioningtest.htm

p.s...Dan; I live in Germantown. Saw your site and work you're doing at Drexel...very nice.

jamesxv7 · Feb 23, 2004, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

Wow...browsercam is a godsend! (No pun intended).

It's one of the most useful web dev. tools! But I prefer http://www.danvine.com/icapture/

Shem · Feb 23, 2004, 13:01

OK, then one last question: are absolutely positioned layers considered to be standards compliant (w3, etc.)?

jamesxv7 · Feb 23, 2004, 13:50

Absolutely yes!
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visure...te-positioning

Feb 21, 2004, 18:15	#1
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	Are frames still a good idea? I stopped using frames a few years ago, mainly because I had questions about problems that arise when search engines find individual frames that belong to framesets. Also I wondered if they are "out of style" and considered bad practice. (Irrational belief?). Now I have a client whose site really seems it would work much better if frames were employed.... there is a complicated graphics intensive Fireworks table on the home page and I need to be doing database queries with several possible iterations inside of <td> tags that will be very very tricky to implement inside of this beautiful table. So frames may be the answer....put the database results in a central frame and all the pretty stuff on the outside. So my question is.... are frames generally discouraged nowadays, or is it advisable to still use them in situations like these?

Feb 21, 2004, 18:26	#2
Ravedesigns Community Advisor Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 2,899	Hey Shem, Like you said, I would consider frames out of style and a bad practice nowadays. How about using Server Side Includes? I use them often for navigation and other site-wide elements (stuff frames were always used for) and boy are they a time saver! Steve __________________ ## Free Marketing Book With 101 Marketing Ideas ## and Advice to Help Grow Your Business Fast ## Get It Now at www.expertmarketingadvice.com!

Feb 21, 2004, 19:54	#5
mmj Test cases complete. 0 fails. Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 6,568	Frames still have their place today. In fact, they're standards-compliant, using XHTML 1.0 Frameset. This gives them more validity than, for instance, using tables for layout, because tables were never a standard way of doing page layout. There are problems with using frames, such as problems with navigation (links not opening in the expected frame, back button not working) but these problems can be worked around if the site is coded correctly. For example, you shouldn't set external links to open in a frame - they should open in _top. Many of the main complaints people have about frames is because of badly designed pages where external links open in a frame, etc. On the other hand, using frames where they are not necessary or where it doesn't make sense is not a good idea, because frames are more still a little more complicated to use. You should use frames only when there is a reason to do so. The places I've most seen frames recently have been administration control panels, and other control-panel style applications. The main benefit of frames is that a certain part of the page only needs to be loaded once, and not re-sent with each page request. The effect of frames can all be done with CSS now, but doing so loses this benefit. __________________ [mmj] My momentous journey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me Spuds Jokes Bazaar VCS Inkscape Firefox phpBB

Feb 21, 2004, 20:55	#7
platinum + Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 6,509	Why don't you slice up your design by hand, rather than using fireworks inbuilt tool. Most "layout" problems can be pretty easily fixed, but when one element relies on spacer images, and 10 other surrounding images to keep it in place things are a little messy. That's the advantage of taking an extra 20-30mins to hand silce and where applicable use CSS to craft your pages differently to fireworks (fairly ugly) slicing job. Where pages need to be versitile and keeping content from relying on each other for space on a page is where CSS really helps you out. Show us the layout if you need to, maybe can offer some advice? __________________ gavinbenda.com.au // // netforge.com.au

Feb 21, 2004, 22:20	#9
platinum + Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 6,509	I was wondering specifically what the problem was with the database'd info breaking your layout? But anyway, no you don't need to swap over to total CSS layouts, but using it inline with your tables can reduce the chances of things breaking. Like rather than having your databased results listed in cells, you can use a list (styled with css) to create the same result. __________________ gavinbenda.com.au // // netforge.com.au

Feb 21, 2004, 19:15	#3
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	Yes, I am using server side includes for navigation, etc. already. My problem is that my database queries.....they iterate through table data rows so that they have the potential to break up neatly designed Fireworks tables too much. I know how, of course to minimize the damage by carefully designing slices by aligning bottom edges of certain ones....but it gets really tricky with the design I'm currently using. There are many slices on the side colums of my design, and the database results will show in the middle.

Feb 21, 2004, 19:29	#4
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	This is what I'm talking about in terms of the layout and the potential problem with tables and the database query. The center would require more rows than the sides. http://www.mediabreeze.com/images/layout.jpg <edit> Although, you know what....after posting the layout, I just realized that I should probably not use table data rows for the results...just some sort of bulleted list divided by horizontal rules or something. </edit>

Feb 21, 2004, 20:08	#6
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	Thanks.! A big benefit when an Advisor answers your post! Thanks for the perspective because I did not know that they were in fact, more compliant than tables. I keep hearing about how tables are not really meant to be for page layout, etc. It's funny because so much of graphics slicing relies on tables. Based on your post, if I have to use tables I won't feel like it's a big faux pas anymore. (at least not this year!)

Feb 21, 2004, 21:21	#8
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	This is the general concept: http://www.mediabreeze.com/images/layout.jpg I don't know how to use CSS for layout yet. If it's really superior, I will learn it. The only thing is that whatever I build needs to be "modifiable" by other designers with modest skills. My client may also be modifiying what I build with Macromedia Contribute. It seems with CSS that it's all code based and would be harder for newbies to go in and modify after me. But please let me know if I'm wrong. I'm always game for learning new stuff. If there's a good small list of reasons I should switch over to CSS I'll do it.

Feb 21, 2004, 22:22	#10
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 20,206	Didn't SP say that they don't have links in the forums open in new windows because the 'target' attribute isn't valid XHTML? How do you do XHTML compliant frames then without specifying the target frame for each link? __________________ Check out my blog • W3ROI • W3Counter • VisitorBoost

Feb 22, 2004, 07:30	#11
LeoWebDesign SitePoint Wizard Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Central PA Posts: 1,149	Looks like I am a little late but I am here so I'll say it too... I only use frames when the client absolutely insists and I can't talk them out if it. (black backgrounds too!). They usually ask for it because of a site they have seen. __________________ Harrisburg PA Jobs \| Harrisburg PA Realtor \| Harrisburg Search

Feb 23, 2004, 03:16	#14
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	My only question with CSS is that with complicated, tightly constructed Fireworks graphics in a web site, how do you position everything visually? With CSS, don't you have to build it all in code without being able to see the result until the end? And when you do this, how easy will it be for a designer working with me to go in and make changes?

Feb 23, 2004, 07:10	#15
jamesxv7 Starting to-digg-in ********* Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Island of Puerto Rico @ the Caribbean Posts: 874	Try using absolute divs. Also you can fix your images as backgrounds and control them using the X and Y values. __________________ James: Ecodig - My Blog - My Gallery Validate your sites: CSS - HTML/XHTML Without faith you are lost.

Feb 23, 2004, 08:42	#16
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	I tried using absolute divs. In fact, that is the easiest to manage. But there is a MAJOR problem with that.... 1st of all I don't think I can guarantee it will look same on every computer. Mac users, from what I'm told, will possibly get screwy results with it. I cannot afford to take that risk.

Feb 23, 2004, 08:44	#17
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 20,206	I'm sure you can do it with relative divs too, using images as backgrounds again and specifying widths and heights for the divs. __________________ Check out my blog • W3ROI • W3Counter • VisitorBoost

Feb 23, 2004, 08:54	#18
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	In your God training school, what do they say about absolute positioning of layers and Mac users? Are there any Mac users out there? I don't have one so I can't test on it, but I hear absolute positioning can be a few pixels off if designed on a PC and viewed on the Mac.

Feb 23, 2004, 08:55	#19
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 20,206	God training school? There's a site out there that will take screenshots of your site on Mac computers for you, but I'll let you find it for that. __________________ Check out my blog • W3ROI • W3Counter • VisitorBoost

Feb 23, 2004, 09:31	#21
Dan Grossman Follow Me On Twitter: @djg Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Philadephia, PA Posts: 20,206	No, not Browsercam, it's for Mac only and is free and much faster. http://www.danvine.com/icapture/ __________________ Check out my blog • W3ROI • W3Counter • VisitorBoost

Feb 23, 2004, 09:42	#22
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	Wow...browsercam is a godsend! (No pun intended). Also, the danvine.com....awesome. I really appreciate the help. I think this goes to show that whatever you want in development is available if you ask the right questions. Thanks to Dan, drzoid, mmj, platinum, and everyone else whose helped out with this thread. I think doing the multiple checks like on browsercam and danvine is the ultimate solution for what I need. Also, this layerpositioning test seems to disprove the theory I heard that the layer positioning would not work on Mac. I tried this absolute layer positioning test on the Mac via danvine.com and it looks identical on Mac and PC. http://www.pmob.co.uk/temp/positioningtest.htm p.s...Dan; I live in Germantown. Saw your site and work you're doing at Drexel...very nice.

Feb 23, 2004, 13:01	#24
Shem SitePoint Addict Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 263	OK, then one last question: are absolutely positioned layers considered to be standards compliant (w3, etc.)?

Feb 23, 2004, 13:50	#25
jamesxv7 Starting to-digg-in ********* Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Island of Puerto Rico @ the Caribbean Posts: 874	Absolutely yes! http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visure...te-positioning __________________ James: Ecodig - My Blog - My Gallery Validate your sites: CSS - HTML/XHTML Without faith you are lost.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode