Kathy Gill wrote:
> Gerr Ott wrote:
> > Is the answer then to open a site with a
> > non-frames page containing the meta tags, and then either redirecting
> > to
> > the frames opening page or providing a url to start the frames opening
> > page?
> >
> Perhaps the answer is to figure out *why* you're using frames in the
> first place. <smile> Seriously, I believe that many framed sites could
> be simplified a lot (http://www.ual.com/ - uhg) because instead of
> reducing server load, they're increasing it (ie, replacing content in
> each frame, in the case of UAL, four I think, with many of the links).
If you're going to use frames and want to allow accurate bookmarking you
will need to load an entire frameset every time you change a page. Hence,
you need to create lotsa extra html docs to do a framed site and make it as
"bookmark friendly" as a non-framed site. That translates to "it takes more
time to do a framed site correctly". A developer has to decide whether the
definition of "correctly" includes bookmarkability. If it does, then the
bandwidth, time and organization needed for a "correctly" done framed site
is significantly higher than either an "incorrectly" done framed site, or a
non-framed site.
BTW, I am aware that some images may be cached when the next frameset is
loaded, thus decreasing load time of the overall set. I still think the
arguments against frames outweigh any gains, with a few exceptions that
usually have to do with sites that act more like applications than
brochureware.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
