How much does using frames slow down loading?

[mrrrl]

I have a web site that loads very slowly. I am using frames but have been thinking that is why it loads so slowly. There is not much on the site. I see other sites that load blazingly fast sand have a ton of stuff on the page and they are not using frames but tables.

So are tables the way to go?

TIA

 

[RISTMO]

Actually, a page with frames will load much FASTER than a page without frames. However there are many setbacks with using frames. If you don't mind those, frames are faster.
Do you have any graphics? How much space do they take? Are you doing any database stuff? What's the url? We can test it's speed for you.

Rick

 

[mrrrl]

Thanks for getting back with me. Here is the url

http://www.buildyourownhome.info

As you can see it has one jpg, one gif and one background image.

But sometimes it just takes forever to load the begining pages/frames.

What are some of the set backs on using frames. As you can see I don't need anything fancy, but would like it to load pretty quick.

Thanks

 

[RISTMO]

It didn't take terribly long to load the first page. The second pages were slower, but not horrible. If you want to try something, make a test page, copy the code from all the paes being called from the frameset and see how long it takes to load. It will be about the same as making it with tables.

Setbacks for frames? There are lots!!! I'm sure there will be tons of people coming to answer this question! The main one I can think of now is trying to get it into search engines. There are problems--with workarounds, but it's better to go the other way if possible.

If you notice a difference in the test page (which I very much doubt) you might want to try SSI. If you are willing to put up with frames, go ahead, but I can see you running into problems in the future. Some links (I have not read these articles, just found them):

http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/

http://www.weballey.net/webdesign/frames.html

http://www.starlingweb.com/acc/acfra.htm

http://www.webstyleguide.com/page/frames.html

Rick

 

[mrrrl]

So it may not load faster by using tables but will have problems with search engines trying to crawl around the site and pick it up?

If that is the case then you would suggest to go with tables or another way besides frames?

Thanks

Bob

 

[RISTMO]

I would suggest using tables for formatting and SSI to include the header and menus. See thread253-406176 for more info.

Rick

 

[BDNFLNC]

First off...the background image itself is 152Kb! That little chest is 128Kb!

Go grab these...

http://www.badinfluence.com/rrdm-wd-2-BG_new.jpg

http://www.badinfluence.com/toolbox_new.gif

That should help a bit.

 

[mrrrl]

I tried your little test you spoke of. I put the first page in a table. It does load a little faster but it seems to reload much faster.

http://www.buildyourownhome.info

(frames)

and

http://www.buildyourownhome.info/index2.htm

(tables)

I will also look at the pixs that BDNFLNC suggested.

Thanks

Bob

 

[BDNFLNC]

Use those images I posted for ya and then clear your broswer cache and close the program then reopen it before you load the page.

Or at least be sure to clear the cache and refresh the page while holding down SHIFT.

 

[mrrrl]

http://www.buildyourownhome.info/index3.htm

is with the new pictures from BDNFLNC. Thanks.

Now how did you get the pictures to a smaller file size?

Thanks,

Bob

 

[BDNFLNC]

I used the "Save for Web" option in PhotoShop 7. 6 has this also.

You can also work with the save as options in older PhotoShop versions to acheive the same effect, but it takes some getting used to.

Does it load faster for you? Still a little slow here. I am guessing it is the connection of the host to the Internet actually. Is it hosted on your own server or at an ISP? What type of connection is it?

 

[Wullie]

RISTMO

No offence, but can I ask what makes you think that a page using frames should load quicker than one without?

To be honest, I don't know either way but using reasonable thinking, calling a page with simple tables only requires one server request where as a page with frames would require multiple server requests.

Surely a single page would load quicker, possibly only a fraction of a second, but still quicker?

Hope this helps Wullie

sales@freshlookdesign.co.uk

http://www.freshlookdesign.com

http://www.thomsonassociates.co.uk

The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails. - John Maxwell

 

[RISTMO]

I don't know if multiple server requests slows things down or how much, but I meant something different. I meant that once the frameset has loaded, you only have to load the new content page and the images in the header and menu stay loaded. That's why I said it would save time once loaded.

Rick

P.S. It is MUCH faster now! I can't believe that I loaded 152K that fast yesterday!

 

[palbano]

Page Load time is a combination of three things
1) Data transfer time. This includes all requests for resources.
2) Render time. This is the time it takes the browser to parse and render all the content.
3) Server side dynamic processing

Frames vs no frames should not have a large effect on the transfer time. The browser will reuse the socket connection for all the resources it needs to request from the server.

Now what about page render time?

Tables in any page can cause the browser to renders the page slower since it cannot determine the column layouts until it has parsed all of the table and calculated the widths.

IE supports a CSS attribute like (table-layout) or something like that. If you use it and assign widths to all your columns it will render tables faster.

As we can see images are the largest offender of transfer time. So keep your images small and even few if you can. Pages with tens of images making up there layout are typically slow to both transfer and render.

Also finding ways to accomplish your layout with minimal use of tables especially nested tables will reduce the render time.

Finally server side processing can sometimes be the largest culprit. Look at how slow TT is most of the time. This is due to things like database queries and format engines used to produce the ultimate HTML output stream.

And you thought this web design thing would be easy!

-pete

 

[Wullie]

palbano

While this may not be your intention, the above post looks to me as though you think we are children.

The tone that your post conveys and also the highlighting of certain words seems to make out that you think we cannot read, if so then you are sadly mistaken.

Anyway, I would like you to provide some proof or further explanation on the comment about the frames v's no frames. I work mostly on the server side of it and to me, common sense prevails that one single request takes less time than multiple requests to the same server.

If you use frames then multiple requests are made to the server, whereas the exact same code on a single page would load quicker, without a doubt.

Hope this helps Wullie

sales@freshlookdesign.co.uk

http://www.freshlookdesign.com

http://www.thomsonassociates.co.uk

The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails. - John Maxwell

 

[palbano]

>> your post conveys you think we cannot read

Yeah and Jimmy Hoffa is buried in my back yard.

>> this may not be your intention

It was not.

For the colors… you should see some of the horrific web pages and graphics I have built!

For the rest, I don’t always put a great deal of effort into a post due to lack of time. I am mostly concerned with making the information readable and not adding tone to the post.

>> common sense prevails that one single request
>> takes less time than multiple requests to the same
>> server.


Of course that is true. However with frames the only extra time is the request transmission which are relatively small in terms of the amount of data transferred to the server, and the extra resource handling by the server. For the most part the remaining transfer sizes will be the same.

As for the time it takes for browsers to render their display I did not ever build a browser so I am only reporting information I have read on Microsoft and Netscape’s web sites.

In conclusion my previous post did not state that extra requests for frame based pages would be no slower. However one should consider that an average Browser HTTP request for an outer web page will result in around 12 different resource requests including images, css style sheets and client scripts. Therefore it seems logical that one or two more will not have a dramatic effect on overall performance in comparison to reducing image sizes and number of images along with the HTML layout as it effects browser rendering.

Whew!! That's more than I've said in a Month LOL

-pete

 

[RISTMO]

My point was that although it may take slightly longer to load frames, once they are loaded, there is only the content for the page, not all the menus, headers, etc. to load. It will be much faster (I think) to load a only the new content, then to load the whole thing again (even if the images are cached). My simple opinion. Remember--If you don't mind waiting a little longer, SSI is much better in the end!

Rick