Are iframes considered 'bad practice'? [cl

Question

Somewhere along the line I picked up the notion that using iframes is 'bad practice'.

Is this true? What are the pros/cons of using them?

Answer 1

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).

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

As with all technologies, it has its ups and downs. If you are using an iframe to get around a properly developed site, then of course it is bad practice. However sometimes an iframe is acceptable.

One of the main problems with an iframe has to do with bookmarks and navigation. If you are using it to simply embed a page inside your content, I think that is fine. That is what an iframe is for.

However I've seen iframes abused as well. It should never be used as an integral part of your site, but as a piece of content within a site.

Usually, if you can do it without an iframe, that is a better option. I'm sure others here may have more information or more specific examples, it all comes down to the problem you are trying to solve.

With that said, if you are limited to HTML and have no access to a backend like PHP or ASP.NET etc, sometimes an iframe is your only option.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.