Frames or No Frames

PaulSands · 30 Oct 2003, 15:14 (Ref:768154)

I'm spring cleaning my site in anticipation of 2004 and cant decide whether to go down the frames route or not
If anyone doesnt mind could you have a look at the following layouts and comment...none of the links are functioning yet

NO FRAMES
http://www.paulsands.streamlinenet.co.uk
FRAMES
http://www.paulsands.org/ps2004.htm

**Tim Falce** · 30 Oct 2003, 15:21 (Ref:768161)

I don't like frames but the front page your first site seems too long. Why not have a menu on the first page and a seperate links page. You could go with .asp or .php and have the same menu on each page, it makes for easier surfing and keeps the punter on your site. Sorry if I am trying to teach you to suck eggs.
BTW, I do like the general layout of the top of the non frames page though.

PaulSands · 30 Oct 2003, 15:34 (Ref:768170)

not teaching me to suck anything

all comments gratefully received

Dave Brand · 30 Oct 2003, 16:19 (Ref:768221)

My personal preference is for frames - it makes site navigation easier if the menu is in a sidebar rather than at the top of every page. The downside is, of course, that it reduces the area in which the pictures are displayed.

brickkicker · 30 Oct 2003, 16:34 (Ref:768242)

Im going with no frames as it looks loads better without a big slide bar taking up all that room

**Tim Falce** · 30 Oct 2003, 16:54 (Ref:768271)

it makes site navigation easier if the menu is in a sidebar
With ASP or PHP (and other scripts I think) you can put the menu where you want. All you do is make one menu file and put it on every page. If you need to alter the menu, you only do it once

F3lollipops · 30 Oct 2003, 19:25 (Ref:768371)

I don't know anything about web design, but in my humble opinion the one with no frames looks heaps better - much less messy to look at

PaulSands · 31 Oct 2003, 14:36 (Ref:769258)

as I really cant see me having the opportunity to get to grips with .asp or .php before the start of next year how about this instead
yes it's still frames but not so obviously
http://www.paulsands.streamlinenet.co.uk

brickkicker · 31 Oct 2003, 15:21 (Ref:769306)

just had another look and one think I thought about was your email and links page are very close. Sorry is that being to picky.

PaulSands · 31 Oct 2003, 15:22 (Ref:769307)

yes

s'ok it's all in flux anyway...plenty of time to get it sorted

**Peter Mallett** · 31 Oct 2003, 15:47 (Ref:769327)

Not going to vote but I had a similar dillema. I put my links at the top of each page then miimised the amount of info to each page. It makes my site easy to navigate and it also makes anyone interested click through other pages too.

You might want to look at my links page.

redshoes · 31 Oct 2003, 17:23 (Ref:769393)

Unless you have a really good reason I'd go with no frames every time. It might be a bit of extra work but it's much easier to navigate without.

If you can't handly asp or php have a look if your server supports SSI includes, or if you get really stuck try using javascript's document.write and call a script in a seperate file. A bit messy but it works.

Paul, your latest frames page may not work properly for some people. You've made the top fram a percentage rather than an actual size so depending on how big the screen/window is they may not see all of the links.

**Peter Mallett** · 31 Oct 2003, 17:42 (Ref:769407)

Oops. I used no frames.

**Tim Falce** · 31 Oct 2003, 20:24 (Ref:769587)

The newer one looks OK Paul. Beware of using Java, as I have found quite a few browser won't handle it, especialy new Macs running XP. I also dont like Flash on websites as things start to get boring with it. IMHO .ASP is easier to use than frames, just depends whether your server supports it.

**Craig** · 31 Oct 2003, 20:33 (Ref:769602)

Frames are the work of the devil.

**Craig** · 31 Oct 2003, 20:36 (Ref:769606)

Being serious for a moment, set your browser window to 640x480 and see one of the MAJOR problems that this design presents. And, before you write that resolution off, more and more people are using smaller screen resolutions nowadays with the various methods of connecting with small portable equipment...

blackfalcon · 1 Nov 2003, 11:06 (Ref:769997)

I think that the no frames is better. I'm not a fan of frames anyway. I use php scripts for my galleries and they work very well with 1 exception. I can't format the text for each photo via the style sheet and this is annoying. The gallery is much easier to do compared to the usual table. I'm looking into using the script for the header on a site next year.

**Woolley** · 1 Nov 2003, 11:18 (Ref:770003)

I liked the first one best.

And as an aside, do you now there's a photo with ascarracinguk's mum on it?

**Craig** · 1 Nov 2003, 14:07 (Ref:770109)

Quote:

Originally posted by Woolley
I liked the first one best.

I also like the black background better. However it is worth pointing out that BOTH examples are using frames. A simple layout using tables will be far better for many, many reasons.

Les · 2 Nov 2003, 10:58 (Ref:770625)

rememeber that search engine spiders can't handle frames either so if you are expecting people to search for your photos then you might be disappointed.

**Craig** · 2 Nov 2003, 22:53 (Ref:771028)

And once they've found them they cannot bookmark them...

It took me six long weeks to try and get the various problems with frames over to my boss following some 'professionals' coming in and redoing our company website. Six weeks where our online sales dwindled to pretty much nothing. Two weeks ago they finally listened and ditched them and now they're selling more than ever.

Do yourself a favour and take a few minutes to learn about the various solutions to your problem. Frames are not a solution. They are the equivalent of hacking off your right arm because you got a splinter in your little finger.

PaulSands · 3 Nov 2003, 07:08 (Ref:771252)

Quote:

Originally posted by Craig Antill
However it is worth pointing out that BOTH examples are using frames.

well spotted there ...that's cos I went and changed the wrong one...DOH!

ahh well it's all work in progress anyway

View Poll Results: Should I Use Frames or Not
Frames	2	33.33%
No Frames	4	66.67%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll