The original frameset model (Frameset and Frame-elements) were very bad from a usability standpoint. IFrame vas a later invention which didn't have as many problems as the original frameset model, but it does have its drawback.
If you allow the user to navigate inside the IFrame, then links and bookmarks will not work as expected (because you bookmark the URL of the outer page, but not the URL of the iframe).
It's 'bad practice' to use them without understanding their drawbacks. Adzm's post sums them up very well.
On the flipside, gmail makes heavy use of iFrames in the background for some of it's cooler features (like the automatic file upload). If you're aware of the limitations of iFrames I don't believe you should feel any compunction about using them.
There are definitely uses for iframes folks. How else would you put the weather networks widget on your page? The only other way is to grab their XML and parse it, but then of course you need conditions to throw up the pertenant weather graphics... not really worth it, but way cleaner if you have the time.
The original frameset model (Frameset and Frame-elements) were very bad from a usability standpoint. IFrame vas a later invention which didn't have as many problems as the original frameset model, but it does have its drawback.
If you allow the user to navigate inside the IFrame, then links and bookmarks will not work as expected (because you bookmark the URL of the outer page, but not the URL of the iframe).
I have seen IFRAMEs applied very successfully as an easy way to make dynamic context menus, but the target audience of that web-app was only Internet Explorer users.
I would say that it all depends on your requirements. If you wish to make sure your page works equally well on every browser, avoid IFRAMEs. If you are targeting a narrow and well-known audience (eg. on the local Intranet) and you see a benefit in using IFRAMEs then I would say it's OK to do so.
The original frameset model (Frameset and Frame-elements) were very bad from a usability standpoint. IFrame vas a later invention which didn't have as many problems as the original frameset model, but it does have its drawback.
If you allow the user to navigate inside the IFrame, then links and bookmarks will not work as expected (because you bookmark the URL of the outer page, but not the URL of the iframe).
Based on my experience a positive side for iframe are when calling third party codes, that may involve calling a javascript that calls a has a Document.write(); command. As you may know, these commands cannot be called asynchronously due to how it is parsed (DOM Parser etc). An example of this is http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpadsnew/ I've made use of iframes to help speed up our site as there were multiple calls to phpadsnews and the site was waiting for the response before proceeding to render different parts of the page. with an iframe I was able to allow the site to render other parts of the page and still call the Document.write() command of phpads asynchronously. Preventing and js locking.
When your main page loads in HTTP protocol and parts of your page need to work in HTTPS protocol, iFrame can beat jsonp hands down.
Especially, if your dataType is not natively json and needs to be translated on server into json and translated on client back into e.g. complex html.
So nope - iFrame is not evil.
They're not bad practice, they're just another tool and they add flexibility.
For use as a standard page element... they're good, because they're a simple and reliable way to separate content onto several pages. Especially for user-generated content, it may be useful to "sandbox" internal pages into an iframe so poor markup doesn't affect the main page. The downside is that if you introduce multiple layers of scrolling (one for the browser, one for the iframe) your users will get frustrated. Like adzm said, you don't want to use an iframe for primary navigation, but think about them as a text/markup equivalent to the way a video or another media file would be embedded.
For scripting background events, the choice is generally between a hidden iframe and XmlHttpRequest to load content for the current page. The difference there is that an iframe generates a page load, so you can move back and forward in browser cache with most browsers. Notice that Google, who uses XmlHttpRequest all over the place, also uses iframes in certain cases to allow a user to move back and forward in browser history.
I have seen IFRAMEs applied very successfully as an easy way to make dynamic context menus, but the target audience of that web-app was only Internet Explorer users.
I would say that it all depends on your requirements. If you wish to make sure your page works equally well on every browser, avoid IFRAMEs. If you are targeting a narrow and well-known audience (eg. on the local Intranet) and you see a benefit in using IFRAMEs then I would say it's OK to do so.
When your main page loads in HTTP protocol and parts of your page need to work in HTTPS protocol, iFrame can beat jsonp hands down.
Especially, if your dataType is not natively json and needs to be translated on server into json and translated on client back into e.g. complex html.
So nope - iFrame is not evil.
They are not bad, but actually helpful. I had a huge problem some time ago where I had to embed my twitter feed and it just wouldn't let md do it on the same page, so I set it on a different page, and put it in as an iframe.
They are also good because all browsers (and phone browsers) support them. They can not be considered a bad practice, as long as you use them correctly.
It's worth noting that iframes will, regardless of the speed of your users' internet connection or the contents of the iframe, cause a small (0.3s or so) but noticeable slowdown in the speed your page downloads. This is not something you'll see when testing it locally. Actually, this is true for any element added to a page, but iframes seem to be worse.
Based on my experience a positive side for iframe are when calling third party codes, that may involve calling a javascript that calls a has a Document.write(); command. As you may know, these commands cannot be called asynchronously due to how it is parsed (DOM Parser etc). An example of this is http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpadsnew/ I've made use of iframes to help speed up our site as there were multiple calls to phpadsnews and the site was waiting for the response before proceeding to render different parts of the page. with an iframe I was able to allow the site to render other parts of the page and still call the Document.write() command of phpads asynchronously. Preventing and js locking.
It's 'bad practice' to use them without understanding their drawbacks. Adzm's post sums them up very well.
On the flipside, gmail makes heavy use of iFrames in the background for some of it's cooler features (like the automatic file upload). If you're aware of the limitations of iFrames I don't believe you should feel any compunction about using them.
Having worked with them in many circumstances, I've really come to think that iframe's are the web programming equivalent of the goto statement. That is, something to be generally avoided. Within a site they can be somewhat useful. However, cross-site, they are almost always a bad idea for anything but the simplest of content.
Consider the possibilities ... if used for parameterized content, they've created an interface. And in a professional site, that interface requires an SLA and version management - which are almost always ignored in rush to get online.
If used for active content - frames that host script - then there are the (different) cross domain script restrictions. Some can be hacked, but rarely consistently. And if your framed content has a need to be interactive, it will struggle to do so beyond the frame.
If used with licensed content, then the participating sites are burdened by the need to move entitlement information out of band between the hosts.
So, although, occaisionally useful within a site, they are rather unsuited to mashups. You're far better looking at real portals and portlets. Worse, they are a darling of every web amateur - many a tech manager has siezed on them as a solution to many problems. In fact, they create more.
It's 'bad practice' to use them without understanding their drawbacks. Adzm's post sums them up very well.
On the flipside, gmail makes heavy use of iFrames in the background for some of it's cooler features (like the automatic file upload). If you're aware of the limitations of iFrames I don't believe you should feel any compunction about using them.
The original frameset model (Frameset and Frame-elements) were very bad from a usability standpoint. IFrame vas a later invention which didn't have as many problems as the original frameset model, but it does have its drawback.
If you allow the user to navigate inside the IFrame, then links and bookmarks will not work as expected (because you bookmark the URL of the outer page, but not the URL of the iframe).
It's worth noting that iframes will, regardless of the speed of your users' internet connection or the contents of the iframe, cause a small (0.3s or so) but noticeable slowdown in the speed your page downloads. This is not something you'll see when testing it locally. Actually, this is true for any element added to a page, but iframes seem to be worse.
It's 'bad practice' to use them without understanding their drawbacks. Adzm's post sums them up very well.
On the flipside, gmail makes heavy use of iFrames in the background for some of it's cooler features (like the automatic file upload). If you're aware of the limitations of iFrames I don't believe you should feel any compunction about using them.
I have seen IFRAMEs applied very successfully as an easy way to make dynamic context menus, but the target audience of that web-app was only Internet Explorer users.
I would say that it all depends on your requirements. If you wish to make sure your page works equally well on every browser, avoid IFRAMEs. If you are targeting a narrow and well-known audience (eg. on the local Intranet) and you see a benefit in using IFRAMEs then I would say it's OK to do so.
It's worth noting that iframes will, regardless of the speed of your users' internet connection or the contents of the iframe, cause a small (0.3s or so) but noticeable slowdown in the speed your page downloads. This is not something you'll see when testing it locally. Actually, this is true for any element added to a page, but iframes seem to be worse.
Having worked with them in many circumstances, I've really come to think that iframe's are the web programming equivalent of the goto statement. That is, something to be generally avoided. Within a site they can be somewhat useful. However, cross-site, they are almost always a bad idea for anything but the simplest of content.
Consider the possibilities ... if used for parameterized content, they've created an interface. And in a professional site, that interface requires an SLA and version management - which are almost always ignored in rush to get online.
If used for active content - frames that host script - then there are the (different) cross domain script restrictions. Some can be hacked, but rarely consistently. And if your framed content has a need to be interactive, it will struggle to do so beyond the frame.
If used with licensed content, then the participating sites are burdened by the need to move entitlement information out of band between the hosts.
So, although, occaisionally useful within a site, they are rather unsuited to mashups. You're far better looking at real portals and portlets. Worse, they are a darling of every web amateur - many a tech manager has siezed on them as a solution to many problems. In fact, they create more.
It's worth noting that iframes will, regardless of the speed of your users' internet connection or the contents of the iframe, cause a small (0.3s or so) but noticeable slowdown in the speed your page downloads. This is not something you'll see when testing it locally. Actually, this is true for any element added to a page, but iframes seem to be worse.
There are definitely uses for iframes folks. How else would you put the weather networks widget on your page? The only other way is to grab their XML and parse it, but then of course you need conditions to throw up the pertenant weather graphics... not really worth it, but way cleaner if you have the time.
They're not bad practice, they're just another tool and they add flexibility.
For use as a standard page element... they're good, because they're a simple and reliable way to separate content onto several pages. Especially for user-generated content, it may be useful to "sandbox" internal pages into an iframe so poor markup doesn't affect the main page. The downside is that if you introduce multiple layers of scrolling (one for the browser, one for the iframe) your users will get frustrated. Like adzm said, you don't want to use an iframe for primary navigation, but think about them as a text/markup equivalent to the way a video or another media file would be embedded.
For scripting background events, the choice is generally between a hidden iframe and XmlHttpRequest to load content for the current page. The difference there is that an iframe generates a page load, so you can move back and forward in browser cache with most browsers. Notice that Google, who uses XmlHttpRequest all over the place, also uses iframes in certain cases to allow a user to move back and forward in browser history.
I have seen IFRAMEs applied very successfully as an easy way to make dynamic context menus, but the target audience of that web-app was only Internet Explorer users.
I would say that it all depends on your requirements. If you wish to make sure your page works equally well on every browser, avoid IFRAMEs. If you are targeting a narrow and well-known audience (eg. on the local Intranet) and you see a benefit in using IFRAMEs then I would say it's OK to do so.
They are not bad, but actually helpful. I had a huge problem some time ago where I had to embed my twitter feed and it just wouldn't let md do it on the same page, so I set it on a different page, and put it in as an iframe.
They are also good because all browsers (and phone browsers) support them. They can not be considered a bad practice, as long as you use them correctly.
They're not bad practice, they're just another tool and they add flexibility.
For use as a standard page element... they're good, because they're a simple and reliable way to separate content onto several pages. Especially for user-generated content, it may be useful to "sandbox" internal pages into an iframe so poor markup doesn't affect the main page. The downside is that if you introduce multiple layers of scrolling (one for the browser, one for the iframe) your users will get frustrated. Like adzm said, you don't want to use an iframe for primary navigation, but think about them as a text/markup equivalent to the way a video or another media file would be embedded.
For scripting background events, the choice is generally between a hidden iframe and XmlHttpRequest to load content for the current page. The difference there is that an iframe generates a page load, so you can move back and forward in browser cache with most browsers. Notice that Google, who uses XmlHttpRequest all over the place, also uses iframes in certain cases to allow a user to move back and forward in browser history.
Source: Stackoverflow.com