Re: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats

[Stefan Magdalinski]

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

traffic. 


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

-- 

/**

Stefan Magdalinski                            0370 67 70 58

stefanisness [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

khalilexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilexcitecorp [dot] com)

 to advertise on Excite.

********************

Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html