Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Controversial Web "Framing" Makes a Comeback

Posted by Soulskill on from the we-know-exactly-how-much-you'd-enjoy-a-slashbar dept.

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."

10 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Don't just spout phrases for the sake of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  2. Can I close the frame? by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the frame has a button or such to close it, I don't have a problem with the frame.

    1. Re:Can I close the frame? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's like saying "in and of itself, using a cell phone or radio while driving is not bad". There are a very few exceptions where it's helpful. Communications for long-haul trucking is very helpful, and for delivery personnel to get directions at the delivery point in slow traffic. But it's so overused and so destructive in its normal use.

  3. Feature? by WillKemp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the web equivalent of crappy programs throwing themselves in your system tray needlessly: gaining mindshare and visibility so they are more attractive to marketers.

      Do they need to be there? Of course not. But they want to be, and most users put up with it. The blame lies equally with users who just say, "well, ok, I guess that's fine." They allow it to happen.

  4. Finally the backlash hits by Night+Goat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. It's good if the frame adds value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's good if the frame adds value by descil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not advertising revenue I'm concerned with, but all the data I enter on those various sites that they should not be sharing with each other. Or with facebook. Or with Google. I guess at some point you have to give in, but not before making your security a top priority.

  6. Re:Maybe it was bad back in 1996 by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, the reason that Google Images uses frames is that the designers were faced with three alternatives:
    1. Display only the full-size image. This hotlinking, and is considered worse than framing.
    2. Display only to HTML page. At best, it makes the user play hide-and-go-seek. At worst, the image is hidden, and the user has to figure out how to make some random Javascript happy before the image can be displayed. Either way, the user often ends up being very frustrated.
    3. Use a frame.

    Framing was the best of three bad alternatives.

  7. Re:Maybe it was bad back in 1996 by RJFerret · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?