Well, as a site designer myself I whole heartedly disagree with your statements. Its not that difficult to design sites to maximize browser accessibility. Content doesn't have to be "identical", it just has to be accessible. Since Pam is selling items from her site, IMHO maximum accessibility is an important factor. Moreover, more than 5% of people still use Netscape4. My own sites register closer to 20% Netscape 4 usage...heck 5% are using WebTV! While its true that each site will have different usage patterns, making it inaccessible to people with a certain browser is sure to skew your statistics against them. Even if it was 5% its clearly not possible for 99% of people to be able to view iframes if 5% of them have browsers that can't render them. And what does that 5% represent? If you have 20000 people try to visit your site, that would be 1000 potential customers you've just blown off. Hey, feel free to redirect those customers to me...I'm more than happy to take their money if you don't want it! In any event, IMHO your use of inline frames in this instance is totally unnecessary and not efficient. You are loading a new URL for each link, so you are not taking advantage of an other wise static page with changing content. Constaining the content to a smaller iframe merely means I am forced to see less of it at one time than my screen resolution would otherwise allow. It seems to me you have simply succeeded in making me scroll twice instead of once...first the main window to center the frame, then the second window to be able to read the content. If the content was in the body of the page itself, I would only have to scroll once and the amount of content I could see at one time would be greater. But that's just my opinion and you are more than welcome to design your web sites any way you please. :)