Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue May 21, 2002 8:22 pm
by lc
yes well I understand and it could be used indeed.

thx for the replies guys ;)

Posted: Fri May 24, 2002 10:34 pm
by gotDNS
frames are bad for your health

Posted: Sat May 25, 2002 6:47 pm
by lc
Well gotdns...

See I'd love to not use frames, but since I also like creating some nice graphic menus with jpg's and such the pages would become rather large.

And then without frames the load times for a lot of people would simply be horrid. Thus frames is a lot of times a nessecary evil I think.

Posted: Sat May 25, 2002 9:07 pm
by NetDragonX
I've seen quite a few websites where they have put frames to very good use and they turn out quite nicely... although I've seen a lot more websites use frames where it's just plain crappy.

So it just depends on your experience and whether you have any artistic ability or not.

Me? My artistic ability is about zero.

So I'll stick with my includes().

:)

Posted: Sun May 26, 2002 7:29 am
by MattF
See I'd love to not use frames, but since I also like creating some nice graphic menus with jpg's and such the pages would become rather large.

And then without frames the load times for a lot of people would simply be horrid. Thus frames is a lot of times a nessecary evil I think.
Surely the images would just go into the cache and would be accessed on the next page.....

Posted: Sun May 26, 2002 10:34 pm
by lc
matt.. not on all systems with all browser settings and sometimes only with added coding which will work on some systems and not on some others.

But errrrr... this wasn't a discussion on whether frames are nice or not. It's about a very specific issue and possible/impossible solution in case you use them.