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."
The main reasons: Ad Revenue. Search Engine Optimisation. And, as you say, annoying website builders. The average site visitor doesn't much care either way.
Jakob Nielsen argued that frames "broke the fundamental user model of the web page" ... back in 1996. Sorry, the user model of the web has fundamentally changed since then.
For example, in the google image case, I really like the frame because it serves an important purpose. Often times it takes much longer to load the target page than the top frame. If that loading takes too long, I can just click the "See full size image" to go directly to the image without having to load the whole page.
In any case, I always was amazed how Nielsen was heralded as this guru of web usability. He may have been early to the game, but I always thought most of his recommendations were bad. Just take a look at his website, http://www.useit.com./ Besides being god-awfully ugly, the lack of any real borders or section boundaries makes it really hard to find information quickly.
I assume we are talking about i-frames here, not setting out an entire page using the old-fashioned Frameset method.
You're wrong, though. They're talking about loading a frameset with a top page provided by them and the bottom page provided by someone else, just like google does with cached pages except for more or less all external links posted by users.
An IFRAME would be even more offensive, for reasons which should be obvious.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wow, good idea! Let's just introduce two more global variables in some messy code! actually, how about we don't and we use something anonymous like this (also don't use as they fuck up E4X:
<script type="text/javascript">
if (top.location != location) {
top.location = location;
}
</script>
Can I close the frame permanently if I don't want it at all on any site? That is the right question.
Aside from Google Images, no frame has ever been useful. It's just some lame site's way of keepin gme tied to their shitty site.
Google Images, on the other hand, has increased porn hunting efficiency by at least 200%, imo.
I have this variation in my HTML.
Ages ago I tested a bunch of them, and chose this.
Probably because it was the shortest one that worked with all browsers I could lay my hands on, or some other reason.
<script type="text/javascript">
if(top!=self)top.location.replace(self.location);
</script>
Our software which is web configuration tool for a our routers, is totally based on frames. Our http server is very minimal, access to flash could be slow, Impossible to dynamically generate pages content on the server side. Thanks to frames we were able to resolve these and other issues.
just curious, but couldn't this be solved by changing the button's static link to a javascript function that runs something like top.location = contentframe.location ?
That is just a case of a cure that is worse than the disease. It is pieces of javascript like that which is the reason why browsers allow you to disable javascript. Consider for example the case where you search for something in Google Images. When you click on an image, it takes you to a page from where you can either follow a link to the image or to the page it was found on. It also has a frame that serves as a preview of the page. Overall I like that UI, but the webpage inside that frame can break the UI by using javascript like you suggest. I see it happening all the time, and usually it takes you to a page that doesn't even contain the image you searched for. If you disable javascript, you won't have that kind of bad experience. But the main search results page in Google Images also uses javascript to format the results better for the size of your window. If you disable javascript Google Images doesn't render as nicely.
I know there exist browser extensions, that will allow the user to disable javascript on a per site basis. But I really don't think that is a good solution. First of all the existence of an extension is a lame excuse for not doing something sensible by default. Secondly I don't want to make such decisions on a per site basis. With javascript enabled for just some sites, you basically have to keep it off by default and just enable it for a few trusted sites. But you will get a worse experience because there are so many sites, that makes good use of javascript to make the page work just a little better.
What browsers should do is not to put restrictions on which sites can use javascript, but on what they can do with it. Letting a frame mess with the parent should not be permitted by default. But since in some rare cases it can be used in a good way, it should still be possible with cooperation from the parent frame.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
The whole "moran" thing came from an image like this, although sadly IIRC the original sign was being held by a striking teacher who actually though the sign was correctly spelled. The hot and yummy goodness of the irony of a striking teacher that couldn't spell spread the meme like wildfire and it continues to this day.
As someone who got to graduate high school with straight As without actually ever setting foot in class, it really wouldn't surprise me that there was a teacher that spelled it moran. Oh, and in case anyone is wondering how I graduated with straight As instead of flunking without ever stepping foot into a class, it went like this: The first class I was given on the first day of HS was gym. When the dumbass coach said "Anybody who is not prepared to give me 20 laps this minute better leave my gym!" I and about 1/3 of the geeks and motorheads left. After the vice principal gave the coach hell for being so damned stupid he put us in a study hall ran by the football coach. I just whipped out one of my mom's Heinlein books and got comfy.
After the coach called me to the front(he was sure I was using the book to stash porno) and saw that not only wasn't porno in the book but I could have intelligent conversations on the subject, he grabbed my class schedule and led me around to all the teachers on the list. After he had a "little talk" with them for the next 4 years I got to show up at 9Am every day to my OWN classroom where I sat until 3.30 teaching the football players during their study halls how to spell words like "flower and stood"(I swear to God they spelled it Floer and stuud when I started) and how to count change so they could pass the tests and continue playing football. Since I was always in trouble and frankly was bored to tears with the crap they taught my folks figured it was for the best. I am proud to say we didn't loose a single football player, even our dumb as a fricking stump WR, on my watch. And of course the school got a free teacher for the cost of some As and not bitching about me smoking on the hood of my car during lunch break. Go Lions!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.