RE: FN-FORUM: iframes, was: site check please

date posted 14th May 2007 10:38

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED] On Behalf Of Alex
> Libby
> Sent: 13 May 2007 16:46
> To: FN-FORUM / [EMAIL REMOVED]
> Subject: RE: FN-FORUM: iframes, was: site check please
...
> 1. You cannot control what is stored in the history of a browser when an
> iframe is used - whilst all modern browsers will support them, they do not
> treat information stored in the same manner when using the history button
> /
> feature in the browser. Check out
> http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/08/ajax-tutorial-tale-of-two-
> iframes
> -or.html for more details.

That page is talking about dynamically creating iframes with JS, which is
peripheral to this discussion really. If you create anything dynamically
you can't expect it to be treated exactly the same as something created
statically, I would have thought.

> 2. There are problems printing - although iframes are supported by all
> browsers, this was not from the start and for a long time; you cannot
> control how the page will look with iframes.

There are problems printing anyway with different browsers. I did a site
recently where I made the 'printable' page for IE6 & 7 - that was hard
enough getting it acceptable in both, but when I fixed it for other browsers
it broke the IE results (lots of CSS positioning). Now, you may say that's
due to my lack of skill/knowledge, but it just goes to show that there are
problems inherent in printing HTML pages anyway before you consider iframes.
If you intend your pages to be printed out, then just do some testing, with
or without iframes.

By the way, I ended up using screenshots of the pages as images for the
printable pages - guaranteed to print properly!
(www.mobilitytodaymagazine.com)

> 3. People inherently like to store details of something interesting for
> future reference, particularly if it was hard to find - you can't (to the
> best of my knowledge) do this with iframes.

This is bookmarking an iframe page? True, you can't do it. But in the
cases I've mentioned I think it would be an acceptable loss/tradeoff. It
may be that it's not important for the iframe content to be bookmarked.

> 4. iFrame documents can be picked up by search engines, but these will be
> out of context in relation to where they were supposed to be; it also
> means
> that the page will not have the means to allow users to navigate to other
> parts of the website. OK - as you say you can add extra JS to get around
> this. But - why make extra work for yourself? Can you guarantee that what
> is
> a workaround (yes, a workaround) is going to work 100% all of the time?

Well, as in 3, it's a functionality/detriment tradeoff

> 5. They also break the back and forward buttons.

Isn't this the same as 1? History is supported by most browsers.

> 6. iFrames break the unified model of the web - the original intention was
> that you should be able to view a web page using 1 given URL, not lots (or
> more than 1). You can get around this, but it is a workaround - why have
> them? It encourages laziness when programming; your visitors may also come
> across your page from a search engine as well, thereby avoiding the
> workaround you put in place to stop this happening! CSS can be used to
> imitate frames, but this leads to issues in itself - you cannot view all
> of
> the contents when printing (see above).

True, but again, for the situations given it's a tradeoff situation, same
with substituting with CSS (although CSS is arguably worse cos it's all on
the same page and just shown/hidden, so there are indexing problems)

> 7. Good screen readers can cope with iFrames, but the average ones can't -
> not everybody can afford or is willing to pay for expensive software.

Well, that's the same problem as some browsers not supporting iframes fully,
they should really because in some cases they're useful to use. But I will
bear that in mind.

> I personally hate using iframes - I know that sometimes you need to use
> them, and that the introduction of AJAX will encourage their use (I
> think).
> It will be interesting to see how they will work with AJAX - AJAX is
> supposed to be a big usability improvement, as it will only change the
> parts
> of the screen that are required. Will there be the same issues? I think it
> is better to have a clear, cleanly laid-out page, which can be accessed
> from
> 1 URL. I am reasonably sure you can achieve the same effect with using
> textboxes or divs - whilst there will always be the problem with printing,
> at least you can save a copy of the page and know that you only need to
> save
> the contents of 1 file, and that there will not be any issue with
> bookmarking - it will be the main page which needs to be bookmarked
> only...

Agreed, and in general I think iframes and AJAX stuff should be used whilst
bearing in mind that it can't be bookmarked, and therefore not used in
situations where you want content to be bookmarked (or indexed in the case
of AJAX).

Phil

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 13/05/2007
12:17