Who's good at web design?

[Ityl]

Is there a better way to do this than frames? Here's what the site will consist of:

A side menu that doesn't change over any of the pages. Then, to the right of the side menu on top is a banner that shows the section and contains links to different parts of the section. Below the Banner and to the right of the side menu is the body. Right now I have a left and right frame, with the right frame split into a top and bottom. The top holds the banner and the bottom changes with body content. I'll attempt to draw it:

M BANNER
E body
N body
U body

There really isn't any limitations to how it's done, but updating must be easily done. Also, why I like the frames, is how fast it loads. The only bad things about frames: bookmarks don't work inside the document and each frame is seperate so there is certain boundaries that have to be taken into account while designing. Thanks for the help.

[Webmaster]

Yes - just use one large table with the cells arranged to layout your content.

frames suck - period. They are an archaic way of web design and I cant stand them!

You say you like them so that the same things are constantly loading and reloading - but if people have thier cache enabled then they just have to load once, and not over and over with the rest of the pages.

As for easy of updating, I recommend you use Server Side Includes. An include is basically a snippet of code that you can reference from any HTML document. Your server must be set up to parse includes (which most are), and you must use the extention .shtml.

But it really is great - i can change all the nav on this site by updating two files.

Check out www.webmonkey.com and www.builder.com for some good tips and instructions on using includes.

[Potatoboy]

Web beat me to it. Server side includes are the way to go.

[Ityl]

why does nobody like frames? Just wonderin.

[Flamebo]

Frames are a PITA. They make sites look so... 1996.

[shartley]

Actually, Frames get a bad rap because so few actually USE them correctly. Some of the most well known sites for entertainment still use them, and do so quite effectively.. but they are FAR from what I see most people use them for.

There are also other things to think of when using them, such as META TAGS, Frame Set linkage, and more. Simply put, to use them correctly you have to know MORE than the average bear. Even how different browsers handle frame sets puts a nice twist to the issue.

So, with all due respect, frames are not BAD...they are just misused. Don't blame people's poor use of them for THEM being bad. They simply are not. And any issue pointed out as a Negative tends to have a solution, but is seldom USED. This make it a designer/developer issue and not one of Frames being bad. To use them correctly takes more skill than single page site design..... it also tends to take more thought. But the end results can be fantastic.

This is why we tend to see them used effectively in entertainment sites while classic business sites shy away from them. And do NOT confuse what you see people using frames for on Geocities or Angelfire as true use of frames.. it simply is NOT.

Webby brought up some good alternatives to Frames that work very well... BUT, there are still times that a good frameset will save the day.. if used correctly. You will even see some sites go back and forth between a framed and non-framed environment. This can take sites to levels that one or the other just could not do as effectively... but again, that takes actual thought and planning. It is not as easy as slapping up a totally Template site designed around a single page environment.

Again, I say don't blame the frames... blame the designers.

It is like the ball chopping issue... Mags chop balls so they are bad, right? No? You mean if you learn to pull the trigger correctly you will shoot just fine? ahhhhh But it is SO much easier to blame the marker, right?

[Webmaster]

Well - I beg to differ...

Frames are bad for one good reason - they hide the URLs.

For example, if I had this site frame based the url above would remain http://www.automags.org/index.html

If you started to surf around and say, found one of Toms tech tips, and you wanted to copy and paste the url so that your friends could read it - you couldn't. Only the frame set url would show - not the actual url of the page being displayed. Yes, there are ways to pop that window out and grab the URL - but how many AOLers know how to do that? And further more, even if they do, the person who gets the url lacks the rest of the navigation to get around if they want to explore the rest of the site.

I also dont like the sliders eating up screen space.

Frames are not inherently evil - but there is a reason they are not found very often on main stream sites (look at amazon.com, or mapqest.com). And even several of my early sites were framed based (and they look fine, ie http://www.earthtrucks.com/). But they dont really offer many perks except in specific circumstances. Yes there are some great frame based sites out there (http://www.delphion.com/ is a good example) but as you said thier potential for miss use is horrible... I have simliar gripes about flash - which either looks like crap, works like crap - or both. Its getting harder to find flash based sites that both look and work well.

One other thing I forgot about - you can also lay out a site using simple CSS positioning elements. www.alistapart.com uses this and tells how they came about it. It is W3C compliant - but craps out on netscape because of its horrible CSS support. (Netscape bad!) Anyway - you can use this to really clean up your code and get rid of confusing tables and tables within tables etc.

I hope to be allowed to use it here at work within a year (we still keep the 10-20% who still use netscape in mind)

[shartley]

Webby, you bring up even more good alternatives for frames. But I sit and smile at your opposition to frames on one hand and list things that are actually quite easy to fix if the designer only took more than half a minute thinking about his navigation and site structure. For example, if you made all major pages actual frame sets and all subsequent pages pulled within them, you would NOT have that Hidden URL problem (to the extent described).

It becomes a function issue.. what is more important for the function and final operation of the site? In most cases the vast number of things a developer must take into account is not worth the trouble.. but that does not mean that if the time and effort was put into it, that it would not be a viable solution. I agree without a doubt that their misuse is far too easy though. THAT is what gives them a bad rep.. not the fact that for certain things they work wonderfully.

I also agree about the sliders... BUT some of the best sites that USE frames leave the actual viewer not even knowing it.

I also agree about the FLASH issue (see, lots that we agree on). So, I guess I would say that both FLASH and Frames can be wonderful tools... but most don't have a clue how to use them correctly. This would make saying they are BAD the easy way out, and to tell new designers to stay away from them the smart thing... But not quite the whole story.

I would say a more fitting answer would be.. Until you KNOW what you are doing, stay away from them. But we both probably know more than a hand full of designers that think they know what they are doing that should also stay away from them as well.

And I am by far NOT saying frames are the answer for all sites.... In fact few sites should use them. But when used correctly they work wonders.

[Webmaster]

I suppose the reason I am "down" on frames is because there really isnt any real advatage to using them. Yes, you can use work arounds and make them function well and be useful - but in general, you can translate frames into a table lay out and use includes - so why bother?

I guess its like you COULD buy a spyder and put a $1000 dollar into it to make it shoot fast - but why not just buy an emag?

[shartley]

LOL I understand your way of thinking. I can however, list times that frames would be an appropriate solution to a designer's needs. Much of it has to do with what technology they want to deal with and how they want to make things work. The cases are becoming more rare when it is needed (or preferred), but that does not mean that they are a tool designers should discard for quicker and "easier" tools.

I also get the feeling that you have a great love of includes (which are great things). But if you try to use that tool to fix all problems you will see that your design actually becomes limited. There are many frames applications that your includes would simply NOT work as an adequate replacement. And no good designer should discard any technology or tool available to him/her when looking at a current or planned project.

Like I said, frames are best used as a part OF a site, not to develop the entire site with or in. There are countless times that jumping to a framed environment for a specific application or presentation is ideal. But again it takes much more thought and skill to do it correctly.

I like the Spider VS Emag analogy, but the more accurate one would be a Cocker VS Emag. I see that SAME types of arguments about flexibility and/or even the need for it.

But hey, simplicity is best, right? You can also take out simple one line Ads in Newspapers around the country and make millions of dollars.

I say.... use what works for the application you need done, nothing more, nothing less. The right tool for the job. And frames is still a nifty tool for those savvy enough to actually KNOW how to use it correctly... but few actually do. Again, people don't need to blame the tool or its being not "easy" to use correctly for its misuse, or to say it is not a good tool.

Some of us realize that some things in life are not always easy. Should we discard anything that takes a bit of time to learn, effort to do, and planning to pull off? And often times the best outcomes are derived directly from the things which are hard. It is what sets people apart.... not that some like doing everything the hard way, because that would just be silly.... but there are too many that refuse to do things IF they are not simple and easy. Maybe it is a Generation thing?

But I will say it one more time.... most people SHOULD leave frames alone. It is not because it is a bad tool, but because it is too easy to use improperly. I think that is about the only thing we disagree on... the reason WHY people should not use it... not the fact that most people should leave it well enough alone.

[Webmaster]

Its not a matter of being lazy or not wanting to work with frames because it isnt as easy. Its just an opinion that they arent called useful to me. Granted, I may just not have had a problem where frames would be the best solution. But its not for me wanting to just take an easier route - other wise I wouldnt be learning ASP right now - Id prefer to do things the right way. Or the best way. But as I am sure you are aware - not every professional see eye to eye on what is the best.

[shartley]

Very true.

[synreal]

i have yet to find anything frames can do that i cant accomplish with div tags and a pile of nested tables.

but the SSIs are the quickest, down and dirty way to go.

[Ityl]

Thanks for your guys' input. I think I'm going to stick with frames. I did a mock up with tables and the feeling wasn't the same. With only the body changing, people still have a sense of the sections. Also, the design doesn't look as good when it scrolls into the top of the screen. It just looks better when it stays. I'm going to recommend the SSI's for updating, I like the idea. Right now the page has 4 frames (really only needs 3) but I think I'm going to change it to only 2. Then the section banner would scroll away so there is more viewable area, so I'm doing a compromise between the idea of frames and no frames. Thanks again.