[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: Re: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats
From: Stefan Magdalinski
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:27:57 +0100

Ray Taylor wrote:
> ... and just to clarify further, I am not pro- or anti- frames any more than
> I am pro- or anti- flash (though I must admit to confusing the two in my
> last posting). The same customer-focus tests should apply.
> But many frames sites are so badly designed that a no-frames version would
> be better and even with a well-designed frames site, the frames layout
> doesn't necessarily add any value to the equivalent no-frames version.

there's more to it than this; Frames implementations in the browsers are
awful. The concept is awful. The crappy workarounds they did to make the
back buttons still work, the Frame-selection mechanism, the inability to
bookmark. The things Frames do to HTTP1.1 Keepalives. Search engine

These things all break the usability that people expected and originally
*got* from their browsers. They turned the most elegant information
dissemination mechanism yet devised into an ugly, unworkable mess.

How many more reasons do you want?

Can anyone name a large site that still uses frames?

Stefan Magdalinski 0370 67 70 58
stefanatisness [dot] org icq: 5261825
http://www.isness.org/house/boat **/
UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.
Email Khalil Ibrahimi khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com) to advertise on Excite.
Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html

  Re: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats, jim smith

  Re: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats, Ray Taylor

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]