This article seemed to take an approach of "Why in the world don't more people use frames?" Please read the first response all the way at the bottom of this page. I would like to add that if a user tries to print something, they only print the active frame which is really annoying. Although I found Altoids solution innovative from a design aesthetic, I do not agree that this is a strong case for real world usability.
Other than having the Altoids name in front of me, this website offers me nothing of interest. It's design, which interesting from a technical standpoing, is confusing, inconsistent, and loaded with bad combinations of text and background color, making much of the useless text unreadable.
Oh, wait, maybe that was the idea!
"It's high time we all recognize that frames are a powerful construct for presenting certain kinds of content -- specifically, content that requires a relationship to other elements of a page even as the content itself changes."
While I agree with the desire, using Frame is not the correct answer. And the Altoids web site is nothing more than marketing flush, a CD ROM title on the web, so frames on its site proves very little.
Frames were a hack to avoid what designers and developers REALLY want: Full HTML documents contained inside a table cell. If you were able to fully compile a complete HMTL document inside a table cell, (and I'm not referring to using an <EMBED> tag, although that is close, but something more akin to what coders might call "flattening"), you'd get the desired behavior that people try and use <frame> for.
As it stands now, this article is barely useful. Another case of someone writing for form and not addressing function. Oh well.
While I do agree somewhat with one of the disagreeing responders, overall I felt this was a useful discussion. Search engines do get confused by frames, but it does not prevent the site from being listed. Many people seem to like having an entire page reload on every link, rather than having only part of the content change. This is like turning a page of a book. Often this is the prevailing cause of the animosity to frames; they feel unnatural. Frames create situations that are less like books, and really only similar to interactive CDs, and other purely digital material.
There are rare situations when frames work well. The use of border frames, with no content, can centre a page in a browser window. This can be a good viewing solution to account for various browser windows sizes. Using a table with % widths and heights seems to go wrong too often on different browsers and platforms.
Since the majority of people badly use frames, there use should be limited. The only other similar solution would be layers and floating box controllers, which are currently difficult for designers to easily create.
As a print designer, I want to have control over the position of elements when I do web layouts. Frames are just a tool that sometimes helps this process.
Submitted by Flash Gordon on Wed, 10/18/2000 - 20:22.
Most people get into trouble with frames because the designer didn't pay attention to stupid little things like targeting their links. All most users know when this happens is that the website sucks, and everybody blames the poor little frameset.
While I don't think the Altoid site is the single most aesthetically pleasing site I've ever seen in my life, it is a masterful use of frames and proof positive that the problem is not in the technology but in its implementation.
While the argument for frames is still a subjective, preferential one, I had to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed the Altoids site. The use of frames does work very well to entice the viewer to interact and delve deeper into the very complicated site.
I enjoyed this article. It presented an unique way of using frames to archieve an interesting effect.
However, the Altoid site demonstrates a problem that you encounter whenever you add any design element that increases complexity (frames, flash, etc.). I couldn't get this site to run on IE 5 for the Mac. It loaded the external frame, but none of the internals, showing a dull grey square.
I don't think that any aethetic benefits from this frame-heavy design outweigh cutting off access to a good portion of their audience!
I agree with Clay on certain points. Frames are useful but many designers overuse or misuse them. I'm glad this topic surfaced once again. I also agree with one responder commenting on users liking the "pages from a book feel" rather than sections of content changing. However, I believe that user animosity comes from framed pages that don't flow like the information should. The (old) rainforestcafe.com and gallegoslighting.com are great examples of good frame design and excellent usability on multiple platforms.
This site does a great job of using frames as a design element and entices the user to browse the site. However, viewing it on a PC works great but on the Mac you get an empty box in the middle. How is this user-friendly design? In no other medium does function and form need to be married as these two players do (In this order).
The problem with most design on the web STILL today is lack of functionality. As a print designer this is hard to say but functionality (at least on the web) must be first in line then art. When you can achieve both, this is what great web designs are made of. Many make use of all the new toys available to build cutting edge sites when most users just want the content within and if using frames can help achieve that then so be it.
The other problem and I believe it was mentioned before is "Search Engines". There are tags to join pages but you don't always know what engine is not going to read those tags.
Like everything... Moderation and purpose then open the floodgates…
I agree, to a certain extent, with the numerous points Clay Andres makes with regards to frames. However, there are two severe drawbacks that people/designers fail to realize. MAJOR oversights, if you will. This is why I must strongly disagree with Clay.
#1. Search engines. They do a great job with "flat pages", but when it comes to cataloging a site with frames, they tend to stop as far as the top page. Search engines RARELLY go much further. This is something that can really piss a client off!
#2. Site stats. This can become a total nightmare deciphering page hits, most often viewed, etc. Those IT guys will think you're an idiot. They might have 'you' give the stat reports to the client.
These are 2 areas designers seldom [if at all] think of. A designers thought process is about form, function, aesthetics, etc. My advice.... designers, get with IT people and talk together about a workable solution. If you are an independent, get some quality magazines discussing the issues of the web. This will help designers look more like the hero and less like a monkey to ALL involved with a project.
Frames Are Not All Rosy
This article seemed to take an approach of "Why in the world don't more people use frames?" Please read the first response all the way at the bottom of this page. I would like to add that if a user tries to print something, they only print the active frame which is really annoying. Although I found Altoids solution innovative from a design aesthetic, I do not agree that this is a strong case for real world usability.
Altoids-curiouswasteofbandwidth
Other than having the Altoids name in front of me, this website offers me nothing of interest. It's design, which interesting from a technical standpoing, is confusing, inconsistent, and loaded with bad combinations of text and background color, making much of the useless text unreadable.
Oh, wait, maybe that was the idea!
Disagree
"It's high time we all recognize that frames are a powerful construct for presenting certain kinds of content -- specifically, content that requires a relationship to other elements of a page even as the content itself changes."
While I agree with the desire, using Frame is not the correct answer. And the Altoids web site is nothing more than marketing flush, a CD ROM title on the web, so frames on its site proves very little.
Frames were a hack to avoid what designers and developers REALLY want: Full HTML documents contained inside a table cell. If you were able to fully compile a complete HMTL document inside a table cell, (and I'm not referring to using an <EMBED> tag, although that is close, but something more akin to what coders might call "flattening"), you'd get the desired behavior that people try and use <frame> for.
As it stands now, this article is barely useful. Another case of someone writing for form and not addressing function. Oh well.
Andrei
I agree
I agree. I never understood why so much people hate frames.
Frames useful for positioning.
While I do agree somewhat with one of the disagreeing responders, overall I felt this was a useful discussion. Search engines do get confused by frames, but it does not prevent the site from being listed. Many people seem to like having an entire page reload on every link, rather than having only part of the content change. This is like turning a page of a book. Often this is the prevailing cause of the animosity to frames; they feel unnatural. Frames create situations that are less like books, and really only similar to interactive CDs, and other purely digital material.
There are rare situations when frames work well. The use of border frames, with no content, can centre a page in a browser window. This can be a good viewing solution to account for various browser windows sizes. Using a table with % widths and heights seems to go wrong too often on different browsers and platforms.
Since the majority of people badly use frames, there use should be limited. The only other similar solution would be layers and floating box controllers, which are currently difficult for designers to easily create.
As a print designer, I want to have control over the position of elements when I do web layouts. Frames are just a tool that sometimes helps this process.
The problem is the programming, not the frames themselves
Most people get into trouble with frames because the designer didn't pay attention to stupid little things like targeting their links. All most users know when this happens is that the website sucks, and everybody blames the poor little frameset.
While I don't think the Altoid site is the single most aesthetically pleasing site I've ever seen in my life, it is a masterful use of frames and proof positive that the problem is not in the technology but in its implementation.
Good example
While the argument for frames is still a subjective, preferential one, I had to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed the Altoids site. The use of frames does work very well to entice the viewer to interact and delve deeper into the very complicated site.
Nice site, except for....
I enjoyed this article. It presented an unique way of using frames to archieve an interesting effect.
However, the Altoid site demonstrates a problem that you encounter whenever you add any design element that increases complexity (frames, flash, etc.). I couldn't get this site to run on IE 5 for the Mac. It loaded the external frame, but none of the internals, showing a dull grey square.
I don't think that any aethetic benefits from this frame-heavy design outweigh cutting off access to a good portion of their audience!
Function / Form!!
I agree with Clay on certain points. Frames are useful but many designers overuse or misuse them. I'm glad this topic surfaced once again. I also agree with one responder commenting on users liking the "pages from a book feel" rather than sections of content changing. However, I believe that user animosity comes from framed pages that don't flow like the information should. The (old) rainforestcafe.com and gallegoslighting.com are great examples of good frame design and excellent usability on multiple platforms.
This site does a great job of using frames as a design element and entices the user to browse the site. However, viewing it on a PC works great but on the Mac you get an empty box in the middle. How is this user-friendly design? In no other medium does function and form need to be married as these two players do (In this order).
The problem with most design on the web STILL today is lack of functionality. As a print designer this is hard to say but functionality (at least on the web) must be first in line then art. When you can achieve both, this is what great web designs are made of. Many make use of all the new toys available to build cutting edge sites when most users just want the content within and if using frames can help achieve that then so be it.
The other problem and I believe it was mentioned before is "Search Engines". There are tags to join pages but you don't always know what engine is not going to read those tags.
Like everything... Moderation and purpose then open the floodgates…
frames and search engines
I agree, to a certain extent, with the numerous points Clay Andres makes with regards to frames. However, there are two severe drawbacks that people/designers fail to realize. MAJOR oversights, if you will. This is why I must strongly disagree with Clay.
#1. Search engines. They do a great job with "flat pages", but when it comes to cataloging a site with frames, they tend to stop as far as the top page. Search engines RARELLY go much further. This is something that can really piss a client off!
#2. Site stats. This can become a total nightmare deciphering page hits, most often viewed, etc. Those IT guys will think you're an idiot. They might have 'you' give the stat reports to the client.
These are 2 areas designers seldom [if at all] think of. A designers thought process is about form, function, aesthetics, etc. My advice.... designers, get with IT people and talk together about a workable solution. If you are an independent, get some quality magazines discussing the issues of the web. This will help designers look more like the hero and less like a monkey to ALL involved with a project.