|
1. They are not browser friendly. Mozilla, Netscape, and possibly others (like CompuServe for sure) don't handle them easily. (Thanks to Gadget for announcing the "they are not browser friendly" comment)
Thats simply not true. My main browser is Moz and I've never had any frames problems since some really early releases. Frames are a standard part of HTML. Don't blame browsers for faulty implementations of this.
2. A big mess. Take team 5's site for an example. Before I had the menu that's on it now, the frames destroyed the other menu basically. Sure, it was a drop-down, but the code for it was basically useless. If you want a nice, clean site, use non-frames (or atleast have an option for the user wanting to view a frames or non-frames site). My poetry site is made without frames, and easy to browse (it should be anyways, it's only 4 pages). Yes, frames can make your site load faster (depending on where your server is, and a few other things), but sooner or later, it'll slow down your site to a hault.
First off why will it slow down your site later? Secondly there are as many (if not more) sites butchered from tables or any other HTML element. Poor web design skils lead to poor sites, not frames.
3. Annoying. If you think a next door neighbor with his music blaring at 2 am while you are trying to sleep is annoying, try this. Frames can make images seem distorted, text become wrapped (which is bad sometimes). Even if a high-class website designer did a site in frames, it would still look the same as if a 5-year old internet newbie did one.
I'm not even gonna bother with this one...
4. Take over the screen for small computers
Again, if they do its the fault of the webmaster not the tool. Frame websites can be made that don't take over the screen.
|