Frame follows Function

It is faulty to conclude that since “some of the worst sites” were built with frames that therefore we shouldn’t use frames. If this was the case we should not use a word processor since “some of the worst” pieces of writing were composed on a word processor. Or we should disband government because the worst deeds committed by our species were done by governments. One must judge frames according to their function. It is a tool and as with all tools can be used badly.

What can frames do that tables or CSS cannot? It allows for a portion of the screen to remain unchanged. It allows for continuity of content where important information stays in one place. Is this good or bad? It depends on the situation.

Imagine an accountant selecting from a list of accounts on the left side of the page and, with the list remaining unchanged, see the details on the right. For someone, such as the accountant, who needs to go back and forth between pieces of information frames can be invaluable. Furthermore as monitor resolutions increase the value of split screens will also increase.

There are enough problems with frames that having an entire website based on frames is not advisable. There are, of course, always exceptions. For instance I’ve worked on artsy sites that had numerous frames and users would have graphics and text link from frame to frame. It was interesting experiment in the avant guarde. Nonetheless, as a general rule frame based sites tend to be heavy and clunky. One should limit frames to clearly delineated subareas.

The case against frames has already been laid out very well in numerous places and I'm not going to recap them here. The case for frames is not a case of showing off ones technical proficiency. Frames are, after all, not very technical. It has to do with the way human being process information, in the manner in which we absorb text on a computer screen, which is different than the way we absorb print media.

Gilbert Midonnet
February 9, 2001