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>
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?