[Typo3] frames and templavoila

[Kester Hynds]

> > Frames are deprecated now and for very good reason...
> >
> > - They are terrible for search engine optimization
> > - They cause a lot navigation issues
> > - They cause accessibility problems (making it imperative 
> to include 
> > "noframes" content and workarounds)
> > - They are not very good for tight layouts
> >
> > Have a look here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frames
> >
> > In these modern times of CSS-positioning and table-layout 
> deprecation 
> > it seems like a bad idea to fall back on frames when we 
> have so many 
> > better options. Don't get me wrong - I agree that tables and frames 
> > have their uses. Tables are the only way to layout data for 
> example. 
> > And imagine the Typo3 backend without frames... But the 
> Typo3 back-end 
> > is not designed to be spidered by search engines or used 
> with screen 
> > readers!
> 
> First of all you should read the content of the link you 
> provided carefully:
> 
> - Without scripting, they tend to break the "previous page" 
> functionality offered by browsers.

This statement is true - Typo3 uses scripting to overcome the problem
right?

> - It is impossible to refer to the "current state" of a 
> frameset with a URI; once a frameset changes contents, the 
> original URI no longer applies.
> - Opening a frame in a new browser window can disorient or 
> simply annoy users.
> 
> This is all _not_ true when using frames with TYPO3.
> 
> You can use "frameReloadIfNotInFrameset" technique to make 
> sure that all frames of the framed page are always completely 
> available for all three cases above.

Yes - that is a solution - but you are having to rely on scripting to
achieve it right? As for the persistence of meaningful URIs across
framesets I am not convinced.

> And regarding accessibility issues I can tell you that I have 
> almost any of the top screenreaders installed in demo mode to 
> check pages and most of them work perfectly fine with frames. 
> I know for example blind people that really like framed pages 
> since it's very annoying when your screenreader reads all the 
> menu stuff again and again each time you switch to a new page 
> of the same site. For blind people reloading a hole page is 
> often very time consuming especially when there are only a 
> few lines of content that have to be changed. 

If a page is marked up properly then the screen reader can be configured
to skip certain sections.

> On the other 
> hand its nearly impossible for screenreaders to read a site 
> that is using tons of nested frames. But this is not what 
> they were made for.
> 
> There are examples for accessible framesets that correspond 
> to the German BITV (short for "barrierfree information 
> technology enactment") here 
> http://www.barrierefreies-> webdesign.de/knowhow/frames/index.php
(only
> German)
> 
> Something like
> 
> --------------------
>     Flashmovie
> --------------------
>             |
> menu    |    content
>             |
> --------------------
> 
> can be very accessible for almost any modern screenreader, as 
> long as there is no important content in the flashmovie 
> that's not provided elsewhere.
> 
> I think you can say the same thing about frames that is said 
> about tables: Don't use them to simply layout a site but to 
> give it a structure.
> 
> 
> Joey
> 

I think this comes down to personal taste... Yes - I agree you can
workaround most of the problems that framesets cause but why bother when
there are so many more elegant ways to achieve the same results? And
there is still the SEO problem...