Slashdot Mirror
Controversial Web "Framing" Makes a Comeback
theodp writes "The WSJ reports that the controversial practice of framing seems to be making a comeback on the Web. Big sites like Digg, Facebook, Ask.com and StumbleUpon have all begun framing links recently, joining the likes of Google, which employs the technique for Image Search. Long ago, Jakob Nielsen argued that 'frames break the fundamental user model of the web page,' but, today's practitioners contend, 'it's a feature, not a bug,' and say it provides publishers with massive distribution they wouldn't otherwise have."
"It's a feature, not a bug" would make sense if we were talking about something that actually arose as a bug. People don't think about what they write these days, they just let out torrent upon torrent of brainfarts.
If the frame has a button or such to close it, I don't have a problem with the frame.
It's a bug not a feature. It's pointless, stupid and annoying.
Facebook does it (with some links but not others) - and there's just no point to it. The link opens in a new tab and the old tab is still there. It might make sense if you were going to open the link in the same tab, but you're not.
What possible advantage is there in opening a link in a frame in a new tab - apart from annoying users?
I first started seeing this in Facebook. It was getting pretty annoying to have to close out a frame in order to see the web page at the full size of my browser window. Hopefully, these companies that do this realize that it just irritates people and doesn't improve the visitors' experience.
It all depends on what the outer frame does. If it adds value to the link - e.g. as Google Image search does, which shows you the picture/allows you to magnify it - then I think that framing is a good idea.
If, on the other hand, it is just there to try to 'keep the users on your site', then it is plain annoying. If this comes back, so will the frame breakout scripts.
In any case, a 'close' button should always be provided.
In my opinion, the way Google Images frames external sites is exemplary, and should be the way others do it too.
It DOES break the fundamental user model of a web page. Even now. If your content is related as such that one page can't work without another page loaded, then they should all belong to the same page (even if that means using server side includes). If they aren't so twisted up that the pages can work independently, then throwing frames around can cause such headaches as function/class name collisions... that is unless your pages are "aware" of one another. Then you are killing the MVC model.
Either way, don't do it.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Framing was the best of three bad alternatives.
Wowzers! I clicked the link and bang, there was the page. It's nice to have a page load in less time on AT&T U-Verse now than back in dialup days. Isn't it weird how we have these amazingly fast connections now but it takes pages longer to load?
I'm a web user rather than designer, and have never heard of this guy, but I'm glad you define him as a "guru"...I wish more adopted his example.
I immediate found the search without scrolling (I often just bail on websites without a search).
There was an obvious separation between categories of info, both by physical and graphic methods.
There was actual provided content with section titles, so I was able to very quickly find info without trying to discern it through various distractions.
I bet it would work great on my phone too.
Speaking of which, sadly it didn't take off, but one trick to a far better web experience was using the mobile version of websites! Much more usable: faster, content without spurious distractions... I wish every website had an m.- alternative to www.-
Isn't it horrifying that often I will reach for my phone to access the web when I'm sitting in front of my computer with an open web browser?
Back when frames last reared their ugly head, I noticed that many of the sites that were using them were doing so to wrap other people's content with their ads. Then came frame-killing code (the bit of JavaScript mentioned elsewhere being one example).
Did the content thieves just lay low until we got lazy and forgot about them?
Have gnu, will travel.
Because it is essentially stealing from the website. As other posters have mentioned, many users don't bother to wait for the page to load and just go directly for the full size image. This is basically hotlinking with an extra click in there for the user, and considered bad practice. Frames may be the best solution in this case, but it still has flaws.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
Google isn't putting ads in the frame and does a good job of making sure that their branding is shown in the frame, and that there is a clear way to get to the original page. That is not "essentially stealing".
Back in the day, hotlinking meant that someone was using the image on a page without permission (i.e., as the src for an img element), not that a link to the image was posted (the idea that people shouldn't post direct links to content on the internet is preposterous).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.