# Frames v Tables



## ksuwyldkat (Nov 9, 2000)

I have always heard that it is better to use tables than frames. I just wanted to know if this was because the navigation is easier. I could see frames getting confusing if not desinged well. Just wanting to see if anyone knew of a better reason.


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

Frames and tables are two completly different things so you need to know what you want to do. I use frames to keep a static menu on the left or wherever that is always visible and throws the linked page to the target on the right side of the page or wherever you want it. It is more efficient I think as you don't have to add the menu code to every page and have it load with that page. Tables are what they say they are and have no real functionality. A table is just a collection fo cells basically although I do use them quite often for keeping a pages format consistent when you want it to look like a document. Of course there are a multitude of uses for tables and this only scratches the surface.


----------



## ksuwyldkat (Nov 9, 2000)

If you load an html page in one of the cells of the table, and used this as a static menu and had the link load into another cell. This would be the same effect as using frames I think. 

It looks like you could do the same effect with tables, just wondering if there was a hard and fast rule about why tables were better that frames. 

Thanks,


----------



## Spu (Nov 26, 2001)

What you just said wouldnt work the way you think it would. The visitor to the site would still be downloading the whole page again, including the navigation bar or what ever.

Using frames is like having two seperate windows open. In each seperate window you'd have a seperate pages loading. If you clicked a link in one frame (and it was set to load in another) the second frame would reload with the new information and the first frame would stay the same (no reloading). Because of this, using frames can cut-down on download times although in this day and age we all should beable to optmise navigational images to a minimum.

And, just for the record, I prefer tables.

Spu

LOVE TABLES - HATE FRAMES


----------



## ksuwyldkat (Nov 9, 2000)

Thanks. That makes sense. I am a little dense sometimes 
thanks SPU and Rockn.


----------



## Morania (Mar 15, 2002)

How do they do the frames so that the actual frame isn't visible? In other words, I want to make a questions and answer type of document where you click the question and get shot dow to the part of the dacument where the answer is. I love these but when I make froames to do this I get the visible frame and all- I would like it to look like one huge long document with links at the top and the ability to scroll throught the whole thing.
(Breath)
Any ideas?


----------



## ksuwyldkat (Nov 9, 2000)

You could do this by using anchor tags < A>. Use the Href property in your question:

< A Href=#question1> What are these?< /A>

and then use the Name property to designate the area to link to.

< A NAME="question1">Answer:< /A>.

If I understood the question correctly.


----------



## Morania (Mar 15, 2002)

I'll give it some experimenting. This is the same code to have a link back to top too? It resembles the frames stuff I've been reading about on WebMonkey.


----------



## ksuwyldkat (Nov 9, 2000)

This would be the same code as a go to top type of link. This would be much easier I think versus setting up a frameset. Frames can be useful but you have to watch them or they can get confusing.


----------



## Snake~eyes (Apr 18, 2002)

only advantage to frames is the menu, that way you don't have to update evrey page for menu but there's another solution.

You can use php, asp or a simple SSI

but i won't get into that. Tables look much better then crapp frames. To me frames shows unprofessionalism... hope that make sense... lol


----------

