In fairness, some of the criticisms have a miniscule degree of merit. To address the issue, we must ask ourselves: what really does constitute a frill? Let's examine this question in such mind-boggling, excruciating detail that the reader may wonder whether or not I have too much time on my hands that might have been better spent making more mods or improving the current ones.
Main Entry:2frill
Function:noun
Etymology:perhaps from Flemish frul
Date:1591
1 a : a gathered, pleated, or bias-cut fabric edging
used on clothing b : a strip of paper curled at one end
and rolled to be slipped over the bone end (as of a chop) in
serving
2 : a ruff of hair or feathers or a bony
projection about the neck of an animal
3 a :AFFECTATION, AIR -- usually used in plural <an honest
... man who had no frills, ... no nonsense about him --
W. A. White> b : something decorative or useful and
desirable but not essential :
LUXURY
- frilly /'fri-lE/
adjective
It is obvious that the first 2 definitions of frill are not the source of debate in this instance. Clearly, the site has never discussed anything remotely akin to clothing, food, or animals. Therefore it must be the final definition which has been the source of such concern for critics, especially definition 3b. For simplicity, we can identify a frill as something that is decorative and nonessential.
It is a commonly held belief that one of the primary purposes of the World Wide Web is to provide easy access to information. Therefore, anything which assists in providing such access to information must be regarded as essential, unless of course it is also decorative. In such cases, it is the decoration itself that turns a feature into a frill, not the device which aids the access.
One of the problems with technology is that it doesn't care who gets squashed on the way to the next big thing. The World Wide Web is no different, except it is more prone to frills. I have adopted the No Frills philosophy in part because I want to minimize who gets left behind. Therefore the site has been designed to provide access to information without decoration or devices which could prevent or delay that access.
Consider the definition of frill as presented above. In something closer to true irony than what Alanis Morissette thinks is irony, the definition as presented does not have any frills. The boldface is useful in helping the reader separate the alternate definitions, find synonyms, and determine pronunciations and alternate usages. The highlighted text itself does not change in any significant way and is not any more difficult to read than regular text; it is functional, not decorative. Other highlighting mechanisms can be useful too. Indeed, colored text can catch a reader's attention and focus their attention on key parts of a document. When used properly and in moderation, it is a good highlighting device which is necessary but not decorative, and thus not a frill.
For text that is longer than a few sentences, paragraphs were invented. For text which contains more than a few paragraphs, chapters were invented, and so on. It's no different for a web site. The organization of a web site is paramount so that the visitor can navigate it efficiently and properly. For this reason, section headers in a web page are purely logical and non-frilly if their sole purpose is to separate the web page into useful chunks. Even frames, for which I have an irrational burning hatred, can be useful in this fashion.
Other types of information, such as data, are difficult for people to read in the usual narrative text. Devices such as tables were created for this very purpose. Tables also assist the reader in quickly being able to detect patterns or trends in the data that would be difficult or impossible to efficiently describe in normal text. If the data itself is important for the reader to understand, then the use of a table to organize that data does not constitute a frill.
Let's consider a real world example by comparing two different web sites - let's call them PortaGibbed and Zero Decor. (Any similarity to web sites living or dead is purely intentional.) We measure Potential Frills (PF) as the total number of images, different text colors, hit counters, and embedded scripts. We express the Potential Frills Ratio (PFR) as the number of Potential Frills per kilobyte; the lower the PFR, the fewer the potential frills (adjusting for web page size).
Below is a text description of the data, followed by a table with the same data. Which provides the information in a more concise, understandable format? The question, of course, is rhetorical; clearly in some cases, tables are efficient devices for the presentation of useful information, and thus are not frills. (For those who remain unconvinced that tables are not frills, consider my use of this table subject to "fair use" principles in critique.)
On 11/9/98 at 2:11 AM EST, PortaGibbed's main page took 27 seconds to download, while Zero Decor took 2 seconds. The PortaGibbed page was 66,628 bytes and 10 images, 2 scripts, 0 counters, and 5 font colors, for a total of 17 potential frills and a PFR of 0.26. The Zero Decore site was 4834 bytes with 0 images, 0 scripts, 1 counter, 1 font color, and 2 potential frills, for a PFR of 0.42.Now consider a table which displays the same information.
| PortaGibbed | Zero Decor | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 11/9/98 | 11/9/98 |
| Time | 2:11 AM | 2:11 AM |
| Load Time | 27 seconds | 2 seconds |
| Bytes | 66,628 | 4,834 |
| Images | 10 | 0 |
| Scripts | 2 | 0 |
| Counters | 0 | 1 |
| Font Colors | 5 | 1 |
| Potential Frills | 17 | 2 |
| Potential Frills Ratio | 0.26 | 0.42 |
I believe the table speaks for itself. It is in some cases an essential organizational mechanism for the effective presentation of information.
NOTE: Obviously this is just an example which, while using real data to highlight the importance of tables, doesn't quite provide the full comparative picture with just the PFR. For example, how many bytes were used to implement the potential frills, and should this metric include images? What about using qualitative analysis to determine the actual number of frills? Etc. Still, it is interesting to note the similar PFRs since it isn't what you'd expect. I'll talk about this amazing similarity in a later section entitled "Frills or No Frills, Let's Live in Peace."
Consider the graph below. It, like a table, clearly allows one to visualize the differences between two things. There is very little decoration (and the decoration which does exist is an artifact of the program I used to construct the graph.) In this particular case, a picture really is worth 1000 words.
For example, I have received heat for having a graphical web counter. Unfortunately, my ISP doesn't support server side includes, and other factors prevent me from using other solutions. So I use the best available option, a graphical counter. (That said, I must admit to using a frillier design than others that are available, and I'll have to correct that.) Believe me, if I had a choice I would use an alternate method, if it had a limited impact on the site itself.
One might argue that a page counter is a frill itself, graphical or not. Certainly that's not the case in general (consider advertisers who care about the number of times their ads are viewed on a site.) But I have no valid excuse, except that the counter provides good information to *me* and it is very useful - and essential - for helping my fragile little ego. If it makes the reader feel any better, I don't download my own page to see my graphical counter - I have a little program which I run from the command line which just spits out the result in text.
Many web page designers try to utilize the most recent technology, or little-used technology, and in doing so make their pages unuseable to many potential visitors. Reducing the number of frills - or making the page entirely No Frills - ensures that every visitor is granted access to the page.
Another challenge to efficient information access is the size of the page and/or the size of the "frills" and/or the amount of time it takes the web browser to render the frills. In many cases, this makes it less efficient for the user to obtain information.
From a more practical perspective, going No Frills can save you money. Some frills can be pretty intensive from a bandwidth point of view - think of those animated graphics and Java applets. When you're not hosted by a major Quake site (like I'm not), bandwidth becomes more of a concern because if you release the right mod, your web and FTP traffic skyrockets and pretty soon you're paying the ISP so other people can play your games. So going No Frills allows me to keep my independence by keeping my costs down so I don't have to go to a hosting site. Just call me the Jack Kerouac of the Information Superhighway.
So without further ado, I give you SteQve's Quake Mods Page - In Frill-O-Vision. WARNING: while the page still doesn't have too many frills, it's managed to wedge my Internet Explorer several times (forcing reboots), and Netscape wasn't so hot at it either. Proceed with caution.
Now that I've flirted with the Dark Side, I feel dirty. So let's wrap up this little essay so I can go take a shower.
If you think about it, we really aren't so different. In some ways, I have the same desires for frills as anybody else. Take a look at my Frill-O-Vision page. I have to admit, there are some parts of it I'd kinda like to keep - that ticker tape is an attention grabber and them colors shore iz purty. Many sites, including the "PortaGibbed" site, are actually pretty close to being No Frills themselves. (Consider the Potential Frill Ratio of my table example. While the PFR is obviously a highly imperfect measurement, the fact remains that the PortaGibbed site has a lower PFR than the Zero Decor, but the two are remarkably similar in contrast to my father's home page, which has a PFR that is 10 times higher.) The sites mostly violate the Efficient Information Access requirement with long download time and browser-specific pages. In some cases, valid informational devices such as section separators are quite decorative, making them frilly but functional.
But it is my belief that underneath these largely cosmetic differences lies the innate human desire to spew forth whatever misguided cosmic spittle we wish to be read by tens or thousands or millions of people, and it is this commonality that gives me hope for a bright future, whether it's frilly or not. I believe that with continued open dialog, the Frillers and the Non Frillers can live in a peaceful coexistence of respect, harmony, and love. Won't you join me?
Your Friendly Neighborhood No Frills Webmaster,
SteQve
Or, check out the original No Frills Quake Mods page