🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998 13:00:17 +0100, "Bryan Morris"
<news@morris4.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Perhaps someday, someone, will explain the objection by some to frames? Is
> it a case of "I was on the net before frames and dont like these newfangled
> yankee ideas") or what.
> 
> Frames have been around for years. Most commercial sites use them, they do
> not take long to load (and whats the paranoia from some that there page must
> be as fast as Yahoo to load)
> 
> Pray tell me.

Gladly.
Speaking as someone who does his browsing at work with a
permanent internet connection (so, in theory, should be
least bothered by the things).

Frames *do* take significantly longer to load. They usually
make multiple requests for tatty bits which have little, if
anything, to do with what I'm trying to see. Those multiple
requests all hinder each other AND the information which I
am seeking. On average the no-frames equivalent page will
be complete on my screen in one tenth of the time it takes
to get the frames version.

Frames *might* not be so bad if what people put in them was
kept to simple text and/or links but all too offten the
cells surrounding the one containing the actual information
are full of fancy buttons (images which have to be downloaded)
and other irrelevant rubbish.

If you want me to see your *information* then just give me
that which I seek. I have neither time nor inclination to
deal with something which takes too long just to load a heap
of fancy crap which is of no interest and which adds NOTHING
to the information I am seeking.

-- 
Peter G. Strangman              | My WWW pages are there to provide certain
Peter@adelheid.demon.co.uk      | information, they are NOT an 'art show'.
http://www.adelheid.demon.co.uk | Critique of them, as an art form, is neither
XLIV-DCCCII-CCXII-DCCCXXXI      | solicited nor welcome.