W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: This Is Hull!

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:12:49 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200104190712.f3J7Cne06037@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Took a look at the html on the vi page. I'm curious why they would stick it
> in a frame. What advantage does that give them? Is this what <META
> NAME="generator" CONTENT="SimplyNet Forwarding"> does?

I've not looked at this specific site, but one reason for doing this
is to make use of the undesirable characteristic of frames that you
don't see the individual page URLs to allow someone to use cheap web
space with their own URL, without revealing that they are a cheapskate
to non-technical users of the site.  It is often marketed under names like
"cloaked redirection".

As I say, it is actually using the disadvantages of frames for commercial
advantage.  Also, some implementations have frameset pages with only
one frame but two items in the row/column widths.  This particular
trick breaks the websitegarage page analysis tool (not one that has
a particularly strong accessibility agenda, but useful for getting a
summary of theoretical download times, broken links, proprietory
element usage, and popularity).

The other use of frames in "web forwarding" is to insert a banner
advertising the name service company or carrying third party advertising.
This is a bottom end of the market option where there is often no
element in the published price for the redirection, or a very low
price, if the web space is provided by the company providing the
domain name service.

I suspect that, if you try obvious variations on www.simplynet.net,
you will find their sales page which will promote these abuses of frames.
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 07:13:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:54 GMT