Posted by Jake on 12/19/05 12:46

In message <MvCdnbj31q3xsjveRVn-hg@adelphia.com>, Rob McAninch
<rob_13@excite.com> writes
>Jake>:
>> In message <dcmdnekii6a7qzneRVn-sA@adelphia.com>, Rob McAninch
>><rob_13@excite.com> writes
>>>
>>> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard,
>>> if you take the time to do it.
>> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly is very easy
>>indeed.
>> I was interested in seeing what the poster had discovered that
>> wasn't generally known.
>
>Well, the items that are generally known still aren't resolved do we
>really need to find more problems? ;-)
>
>
>>> The usability is still pretty awful though just as that article from
>>>1996 points out (although the browsers in use have certainly changed).
>> Usability can be awful, good, and very good (just like all sites).
>>It depends very much on the design and the use it's put to.
>
>Show me a framed site that has good usability (compared to a site that
>doesn't use frames but similar amount of information/interaction), I
>won't ask for "very good".
>
>
Alan Wood's site "Compendium of Pesticide Common Names" has always
seemed like an excellent example to me:

http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_cn_frame.html




--
Jake (jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[Back to original message]