[Brown]

are they 'accessible'?

do spiders follow them?

what's the alternative for netscape 4?

is there a <noiframe>content</noiframe> tag?

anyone got any other issues with them?

i want to convert a complicated frameset but need to know who i'm going to alienate by going for iframes and not providing an alternative.

cheers,

brn.

[Stickman]

<iframe>This text (and link to the src page usually) is seen by people with very old browsers and last I heard was what the spiders read too</iframe>

[Bill Posters]

1) accessibbility is killed stone dead for those platforms and browsers that don't support them.

2) Google doesn't spider iframes, but will index the content between the tags and spider any links there.

3) <ilayer>

4) see previous post


Don't forget that iframes are not supported in XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Don't go with iframes. Go with divs and overflow auto.

[Brown]

ok. say i'm not actually bothered about xhtml 1.0 strict or accessibility but just want poeple to be able to see and print the site - what would you go for?

what's safest amongst the most browsers? any reports out there?

[Stickman]

iframes work in ie4+, netscape6+ and opera.

[Bill Posters]

tbb, *you* might not be bothered with accessibility, but is/are the site/sites for a client in an industry where anti-discrimination laws legally obliges them to be bothered about it?

Even in scenarios where iframes are guaranteed to be supported I would still opt for div tags, overflow: auto;. and SSI/PHP includes.

[Brown]

yeah, yeah, yeah, i know, i know. i do loads of access stuff but its not right for this client. there's pdf's of all the text anyway just in case. its not an accessiblity discussion, i just want to lose a frameset: http://www.beauforthouseltd.com

its giving me bitchin issues with printing, now solved partly with css print but some browsers still print the menu frame on a seperate page and then the footer frame.

cheers bill.