TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
One of the reasons why some people avoid using frames is that, depending
on the way you use the frames, you can end up having your content
hijacked without your company name.
A common use for frames is to put your company name and logo in a
prominent place and have it stay there when the reader scrolls through
the content. It looks good, keeps the company identity in sight at all
times, and means you don't have to maintain company identity stuff on
every document. The problem is that other sites can then link directly
to the content, and leave your company identity off, sometimes even
substituting their own. There have been suits over that very prank, but
I don't know the outcome, if any. It's not relevant to me - I'm not
about to make my content vulnerable to such theft, and I'm not about to
steal like that.
Hijacking a page into a frame to make it look like your own without the
consent of the page's owner is a fairly risky proposition. I'm sure
nobody here is unprofessional enough to do it, but there are plenty of
pranks that the owner of the hijacked page could pull, making the
frameset look very silly. For example, replacing the article with one
that uses a mining analogy for nose-picking, or a sadistically chosen
graphic, to say nothing of the possibilities that JavaScript presents.
But for a professional, the only response is to simply use a frame
breaker JavaScript like the one that Eric posted.
So, that's my view on the general concept.
I just took a look at what I suspect is the site in question.
The frameset isn't terribly obtrusive - just a navigation bar at the top
of the window. As Tim points out, it's very complimentary, and probably
great for exposure. If I were lucky enough to have my site linked that
way, I would not be complaining. I would possibly go so far as to remove
the frame-breaking code from a page for them.
The page does have a link where the framing goes too far: they load the
frameset into the mainbody frame, so the navigation bar appears twice.
But that's just a bug.
---
Office:mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
Home:nax -at- execpc -dot- com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Altom [SMTP:taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET]
>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 1:16 PM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Fw: Copyright Infringement and Frames [OFF, possibly]
>
>I don't mind this much, especially when I prominently post our company name
>on each page. It gives me a much wider circulation, even if the linking
>company's intent is to hijack my content. That's cool...they wouldn't hijack
>it if it wasn't damn fine material.
>...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sokohl, Joe <Joe -dot- Sokohl -at- USMAIL -dot- MPCT -dot- COM>
>
>>Recently I found my Web site hijacked by a group called the Mining
>>Company. Within this group's Website is a page devoted to technical
>>writing. Cool idea, eh? Maybe, except they have links that are embedded
>>within their frameset. That is, when you click a link to an external
>>page, the external page loads subordinate to the frameset.
>
