Slashdot Log In
Controversial Web "Framing" Makes a Comeback
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat May 02, 2009 10:24 AM
from the we-know-exactly-how-much-you'd-enjoy-a-slashbar dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How to stop it (Score:5, Informative)
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
var _tl=top.location,_sl=self.location;if(_tl!=_sl)window.top.location=_sl;
//-->
</script>
Re:How to stop it (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>
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have this variation in my HTML.
Ages ago I tested a bunch of them, and chose this.
Probably because it was the shortest one that worked with all browsers I could lay my hands on, or some other reason.
<script type="text/javascript">
if(top!=self)top.location.replace(self.location);
</script>
Re:How to stop it (Score:5, Funny)
if (top.location != location) {
window.location = "http://www.goatse.cx";
}
</script>
Parent
Don't just spout phrases for the sake of it (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.
Re:Don't just spout phrases for the sake of it (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
Parent
Re:Don't just spout phrases for the sake of it (Score:4, Funny)
Nor should someone who has just been whooshed by low-level parody.
Parent
Can I close the frame? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plagiarism Detection (Score:2)
If this weren't slashdot, I'd say you were plagiarizing TFA.
IMO there should ALWAYS be an option to turn this kind of thing OFF. Then, what's the problem? Bonus points for a prefs link by the escape-button. What, no escape button? GET THEM.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'd prefer there be a setting to turn off the framing. Clicking the box to close it every time gets a little old. I'm not going to get angry about it, there's enough crap that takes screen space that I start thinking of alternatives.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can I close the frame permanently if I don't want it at all on any site? That is the right question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the frame has a button or such to close it, I don't have a problem with the frame.
I think this "It is eeeeeeevil!!!!" crowd got its panties in a bunch. Sure, there are lots of bad ways to use frames, but in and of itself frames are not a bad thing. In fact most, if not all of the examples mentioned are specifically examples of how to use frames RIGHT. They identify themselves, give you a way to break out of it, and allow you to continue to get the "Web 2.0"/AJAXy (or whatever buzzword you want to use) services from their site while letting you to see the pages you want to see. The old wa
Re:Can I close the frame? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Can I close the frame? (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, until you browse away from the original framed page (by following links on it), and then decide that the frame is no longer relevant, so you close it and OH HAI You're back to the original page.
There are no buttons to "close the frame". There are only buttons that take you to the original page, sans frame, from whatever page you are currently on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
just curious, but couldn't this be solved by changing the button's static link to a javascript function that runs something like top.location = contentframe.location ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, because of same-origin security - $EVIL_SITE's JavaScript can't read the location of the bottom frame.
Re:Can I close the frame? (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!
Parent
I swear I didn't do it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It was the single core Mac!
Feature? (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?
Re:Feature? (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Feature? (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If the target of the link is one point in a larger process potentially involving many such pages. Google Image Search is a perfect example of this.
Note, though, that Google Image search gives you a link that allows you to exit the process. That's more guts than most site developers have. They want your eyeballs on their page as long as possible. Letting the user escape the task demonstrates confidence that what you are doing for them is valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what "bug" and "feature" mean? A bug is an unintended and undesireable behaviour. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a bug. Get over yourself (this applies to the summary too).
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what "tongue in cheek" and "get over it" mean?
Finally the backlash hits (Score:5, 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.
Re:Finally the backlash hits (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The i's have it (Score:3, Informative)
I assume we are talking about i-frames here, not setting out an entire page using the old-fashioned Frameset method. Frameset layouts were a nightmare in many ways and their passing is a good thing, but using an i-frame to show some or all of a separate webpage on the page you are viewing can be very useful, and is perfectly kosher in terms of valid HTML and CSS as far as I know.
Re:The i's have it (Score:4, Interesting)
I assume we are talking about i-frames here, not setting out an entire page using the old-fashioned Frameset method.
You're wrong, though. They're talking about loading a frameset with a top page provided by them and the bottom page provided by someone else, just like google does with cached pages except for more or less all external links posted by users.
An IFRAME would be even more offensive, for reasons which should be obvious.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
<iframe id="diggiFrame" name="diggiFrame" noresize="noresize" src="http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/internet-censorship-us-or-just-law-enforcement" frameborder="0"></iframe>
It does seem to be easy to 'permanently' remove, but I'm not a 'fan' of wrapped content of any form.
It's good if the frame adds value (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.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, things are not black and white. The new Digg "bar" frame deal is just like having another menu bar in the top of your browser window, so at least in that respect it isn't all that intrusive... and personally, I got a kick out of using the "random" link feature on it.
I'm a 'new wave' web user who doesn't care if there's content from several different sites on one screen. Hell, a mashup like that is something I PREFER instead of having to load up multiple URLs just to see tidbits of information I
Re:It's good if the frame adds value (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Maybe it was bad back in 1996 (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./ [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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, don
Re:Maybe it was bad back in 1996 (Score:5, Insightful)
Framing was the best of three bad alternatives.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
How is framing a bad alternative? It does the job perfectly, its a great option, in that situation.
Re:Maybe it was bad back in 1996 (Score:4, Interesting)
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./ [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.
Seriously? I hadn't any trouble navigating that page. News is nicely separated from permanent content without using a menu. IMHO menus on webpages severely impact their usability in a bad way. Websites with menus on it are usually the ones where I get lost easily and don't find what I'm looking for. In most cases the search function is broken, too.
And about the page being ugly: it may be styled minimalistic, but that's exactly the way I like it. I don't like sites with much bling-bling like http://www.space.com/ [space.com] and especially game/movie sites because it distracts me from the actual content. But as both seem to correlate reciprocally, that's not a big problem to me...
Parent
Re:Maybe it was bad back in 1996 (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?
Parent
Vote using your clicks. (Score:2)
I primarily use rss feeds to find new articles. I was tracking digg by rss until they started framing.
I immediately dropped all news feeds from them and avoided using their site. Once I read
that digg made frames an opt-in feature, I added Digg back into my news reader.
If I find some other site(like Slashdot) were to do the same thing, they would have one
less set of eyeballs looking at their site.
google images only (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Images, on the other hand, has increased porn hunting efficiency by at least 200%, imo.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
stumbleupon's frame means you don't need to install the extension, which is a great move:
1)It gives the site more screen realestate
2)It's one less addon
3)It works with all (modern) browsers not just those they have an extension for.
Flashblock+frames on firefox3.5 (linux) (Score:2)
Does anybody else have problems with flash/videos not playing in frames when flashblock is running on firefox3.5 on linux. /minefield(64)+flash(64) , ill just shut up and eventually get round to fixing my mess or reopen the bug report i closed when it work for while the otherday
I have an entirely 64bit system here and don't have the time to be messing with 32bit stuff, so if somebody could tell me it work for them on linux with minefield(32)/minefield(64)+nspluginwrapper
Follow the money (Score:2)
Let's see why they want to do this. Is there some specific click behavior that frames enforce that forces additional clicks to ad pages? Or that significantly reduces bandwidth for the servers?
I admit that most frames are very, very badly designed, creating incompatibilities with browsers.
What's the underlying motivation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Back when frames last reared their ugly head, I noticed that many of the sites that were using them were doing so to wrap other people's content with their ads. Then came frame-killing code (the bit of JavaScript mentioned elsewhere being one example).
Did the content thieves just lay low until we got lazy and forgot about them?
You know... (Score:2)
You do know that, at least for Digg, you can disable it. I did. I hated it. Of course, Digg is not at all what it used to be. Which is a shame....
What is the alternative? (Score:4, Informative)
Frames made it very simple to have you web content broken up into nice blocks. You could do all your navigation in one frame, that meant, one file contained your menus. You had one file to edit and you could produce a well defined, well behaved navigation system.
With the jihad against frames we were left with two options:
ALL of this could have been solved by having the HTML spec provide a #include tag that would tell the browser to fetch that file eg: but no one seems to like that idea anymore then they likes framsets or iframes
As to Jakob Nielsen saying it breaks the user interface, that guy needs to get over himself in a big way. The web is evolving and changing all the time. As so many have said, the browser is not simply a page reproducer any more, those days are long gone, it has become an application container that allows applications, served from without to run in a defined and "secure" ( we hope ) application space on the local machine.
I for one advocate forking the whole notion. It is time to create and application shell that is specifically designed do just run applications of some specification. I propose that this can be done by making a tag to go along side as the top level tag and call . This would allow the "browser" to take one of two immediate actions:
Further I propose that the navigation portion of be ported out to the browser and you simply load the elements of the menus and it is fed by a separate channel much like XMLhttprequest.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)