Frames, are they faster?

[Mark]

This is a reply to xhtml_man_online's comment in [url="http://www.dhtmlcentral.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19849&whichpage=2"]this topic[/urlvdiizw4c4]. Xhtml_man_online stated that frames load faster than all-in-one HTML pages (good, semantic markup and CSS), and then especially when the navigation and content are in a different frame. Are they?

I doubt frames are faster. Look at the amount of code needed to build the frame. Compare that to the few lines of HTML code needed for the navigation and header. Remember, the CSS is loaded only once! I believe you can load several pages before the use of frames pays off (in bandwidth). However, there's more to it than that.

Non-frame pages are far more accessible, think about bookmarks and external links (Google!). Also, they give the designer more control (CSS and relative positioning).

Let me conclude with an example of bad use of frames: http://adrianus-parochie.nl
This is the site of the local Catholic church. A quick count revealed there are 9 frames being used. The reason for this is that loading is faster. There are frames for the centering (5 lines in CSS), for the header, the logo, the navigation and the footer. The navigation is in Flash, for the nice hover effects!

At one point they asked me to take over this site, but all they wanted me to do is make it usable with Contribute. I said no.

P.S. Have a look at the noframes tag in the main frameset.. "Please download the latest IE".

- [url="http://neo.dzygn.com/"]Mark[/urlvdiizw4c4]

[Tim Scarfe]

Mark

In some scenarios frames are WAY faster!

Look at the MSDN library for example. I work on an application at work which is almost identical in function to the MSDN library and I hate to think where I would be without a frameset.

A line needs to be drawn here.

If you are making a web site, probably never use frames. If you are making a complex web application you will more often than not need to use frames.

--
Regards,
Tim Scarfe <tim@developer-x.com>
http://www.developer-x.com

[Chris]

i would totally agree with tim there. the web app on our work's intranet uses frames, as they can guarantee that all browsers using the system will be IE5+ (the computer is only ever used for this, nothing more).

my bug with frames is that not all browsers support them, thus by creating your site with frames you are annoying a possible section of your visitors. most non-frame browsers (like Lynx) do seem to convert the frame links into basic hyperlinks, but its still annoying having to read a page, then go back to the menu page to get to another page.. kind of ruins the idea of hyperlinks in the first place (in that they do not have to be linear).

if every browser in the world ever conceived in the past or future supported frames, then i dont see too much wrong with them (and as Tim says they can be very much faster). i would hate for msdn to be non-frame; you'd have to load that hulk of a menu every page change. eek.

[url="http://chrispoole.com"]Chris[/url:bbfs6v3og3]

[Tim Scarfe]

Yep -- It's always reassuring to look for general rules in web development but there seldom are any. You need to evaluate each scenario on its own merit and use your analysis/design skills.

--
Regards,
Tim Scarfe <tim@developer-x.com>
http://www.developer-x.com

[Mark]

Of course webapplications are a different thing than websites. I consider the MSDN a webapplication and I believe accessibility rules are different between websites and webapplications. I was just trying to explain that on most occasions (for example in the example I posted) frames aren't faster.

- [url="http://neo.dzygn.com/"]Mark[/url:ncqj7m7t2u]

[Mark]

There's a discussion about accessibility and webapplications over at [url="http://web-graphics.com/mtarchive/001156.php"]web-graphics[/url:6d7l7bh91x].

- [url="http://neo.dzygn.com/"]Mark[/url:6d7l7bh91x]