[Freakin]

frames are bad.

frames fundamentally break the concept of the web, which is a bunch of URLs for a bunch of webpages. It tries to mash all the webpages together in one big frameset, which wreaks havoc on browsing.


frames are generally bad for bookmarks & search, as well as printing.

Frames are not usually handicapped accessible because the reading programs still can't effectively read between the pages.

generally a SEO site and a frames site are mutually exclusive. Search engines index hte main site and can't find or categorize the subpages properly. at this point subpages would be indexed a lot and users hitting subpages could be stuck at a part of the site that they can't effectively navigate out of (it usually lacks the primary navigation mechanism the website was built around).

frames can also be harder to maintain if they are not being maintained by the guy who developed them. It can become a confusing jumble of subpages and targets that are generally not documented or explained.


basically frames were a poor way to handle the navigation problems that users were experiencing in the 90's when netscape introduced them.

How about you tell the schoolboard that Netscape introduced frames as a solution to the navigational problems on websites in the mid-90's and dropped frames from their own website in less than 6-months because they caused more problems than they solved. They are either unnecessary for a page, or are used because the organization does not want to pay to get a page properly coded and had a mickey-mouse solution thrown together by a second-rate designer.