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."

20 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. How to stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    stick this in the head of your page

    <script type="text/javascript"><!--
    var _tl=top.location,_sl=self.location;if(_tl!=_sl)window.top.location=_sl;
    //-->
    </script>

    1. Re:How to stop it by Sephr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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>

    2. Re:How to stop it by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 5, Funny


      if (top.location != location) {
              window.location = "http://www.goatse.cx";
      }
      </script>

  2. 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.

    1. Re:Don't just spout phrases for the sake of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      People don't think about what they write these days, they just let out torrent upon torrent of brainfarts.

      lol, i know just what you mean people are such morans these days!!! my friend does that all the time but shes a slut she went to see the new Batman movie with me and it was so funny, oh that reminds me no i forgot sorry

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

      Someone who spells moron "moran" should not be criticizing anyone else's intelligence.

      Nor should someone who has just been whooshed by low-level parody.

  3. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. As long as I can close it I could care less that it's there.

      How much less could you care? This information is the only thing that stands between us and the knowledge of how much you do care!

    2. Re:Can I close the frame? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not that this affects you point, but for sites that don't offer that (I haven't come across any),
      In firefox: right click -> this frame -> show only this frame, will sort you out, other browsers probably perform similarly.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  4. I swear I didn't do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't listen to the web of lies. Whatever it says about me, I didn't do it. I've been framed!

  5. 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 digitalchinky · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. 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.

  6. 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.

    1. Re:Finally the backlash hits by cizoozic · · Score: 5, Funny

      It seems like another case of that annoying "You are now leaving our site. It's a big scary internet world out there where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs! Are you sure you want to do that? We take no responsibility for the rest of the internet, but you seem like the kind of idiot that would sue us for a link one of our users provided. Here, we'll give you a life line back to our site, and since you have 15 toolbars installed, you probably don't have any screen space left to see the other site anyway."

  7. 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.

  8. Maybe it was bad back in 1996 by SashaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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?