Are iframes considered 'bad practice'? [closed]

Answer 1

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 2

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 3

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.

Answer 4

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 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

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.