could it really be this easy?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Richard, Dec 21, 2004.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    http://www.porjes.com/hide3.html#d1

    The coding is so straight forward it should become a standard!

    To swap layers, all one has to do is create a new division.
    Link to it and you're done.
    Absolutely amazing.

    Wasn't there someone around here who once said that this sort of thing
    wasn't possible?
     
    Richard, Dec 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Anonymous@127.001 says...
    > http://www.porjes.com/hide3.html#d1
    >
    > The coding is so straight forward it should become a standard!
    >
    > To swap layers, all one has to do is create a new division.


    Well, duh. There's a bit more to it than that.


    > Link to it and you're done.
    > Absolutely amazing.


    Old news. I was developing applications using this sort of technology
    six years ago. OK, we had to write separate code for Netscape 4.x, and
    it only worked in IE4+, but for our software that didn't matter.


    > Wasn't there someone around here who once said that this sort of thing
    > wasn't possible?


    Maybe someone did say that a few years ago.

    --
    Hywel http://kibo.org.uk/
    I do not eat quiche.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Dec 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > http://www.porjes.com/hide3.html#d1
    >
    > The coding is so straight forward it should become a standard!
    >
    > To swap layers, all one has to do is create a new division.
    > Link to it and you're done.
    > Absolutely amazing.
    >
    > Wasn't there someone around here who once said that this sort of thing
    > wasn't possible?
    >
    >


    It's even easier than that;

    <script type="text/javascript">
    function hideMe(divName,doThis) {
    myDiv = getObjectByID(divName);

    if (doThis=="hide") {
    myDiv.style.visibility="hidden";
    }

    if (doThis=="show") {
    myDiv.style.visibility="hidden";
    }

    }
    </script>

    <div id="one">hello world!!!</div>

    <p>Click <a href="#" onclick="hideMe('one','hide');">here</a> to hide my
    message!</p>

    <p>Click <a href="#" onclick="hideMe('one','show');">here</a> to show my
    message!</p>

    See, really easy. But this is nothing new... it's the MOST BASIC bits
    and pieces of DHTML. You use JavaScript to talk to elements of the page.
    Ancient history...


    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Dec 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Richard

    Richard Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:

    > Richard wrote:
    >> http://www.porjes.com/hide3.html#d1
    >>
    >> The coding is so straight forward it should become a standard!
    >>
    >> To swap layers, all one has to do is create a new division.
    >> Link to it and you're done.
    >> Absolutely amazing.
    >>
    >> Wasn't there someone around here who once said that this sort of thing
    >> wasn't possible?
    >>
    >>


    > It's even easier than that;



    But I like this method simply for the fact only one variable is needed.
    No z-indexing, no absolute positioning.
    My next step is to see if my photo gallery scheme will work with this
    method.
    That is, showing thumbnails, clicking on the thumbnail, and the larger image
    appears over the existing stuff.
    Click the larger image and go back to where you were.
     
    Richard, Dec 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Richard

    rf Guest

    Richard wrote
    >
    > My next step is to see if my photo gallery scheme will work with this
    > method.
    > That is, showing thumbnails, clicking on the thumbnail, and the larger

    image
    > appears over the existing stuff.
    > Click the larger image and go back to where you were.


    That would be defeating the whole purpose of using thumbnails.

    Thumbnails are supposed to be used so the viewer does *not* have to download
    the larger image if they do not feel like looking at it.

    Your scheme would force the viewer to download *every* large image. Stupid
    really, those on dial-up would be long gone.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:24:34 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
    wrote:

    >The coding is so straight forward it should become a standard!


    Well for most of us it pretty much did, years ago.

    >To swap layers, all one has to do is create a new division.
    >Link to it and you're done.


    What's a "layer" ? (this example doesn't use them, nor should it)

    Where is the "new division" being created ? It's convenient to do
    this sort of switching by use of a <div> (that's one of the things
    they're for), but they're not essential.

    What is "linked" to what ?

    This isn't your code, so it's not entirely surprising that this
    example works. It's not exciting, but it's certainly useful if you've
    not seen it before.

    However your comments are so badly worded, misleading and basically
    clueless that you're still not showing any sign of getting the
    slightest bit smarter.


    >Wasn't there someone around here who once said that this sort of thing
    >wasn't possible?


    Probably you. The rest of us were just quietly getting on with it,
    some time back in '97.
     
    Andy Dingley, Dec 21, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <F71yd.83451$>, rf@.invalid
    says...
    > Richard wrote
    > >
    > > My next step is to see if my photo gallery scheme will work with this
    > > method.
    > > That is, showing thumbnails, clicking on the thumbnail, and the larger

    > image
    > > appears over the existing stuff.
    > > Click the larger image and go back to where you were.

    >
    > That would be defeating the whole purpose of using thumbnails.
    >
    > Thumbnails are supposed to be used so the viewer does *not* have to download
    > the larger image if they do not feel like looking at it.
    >
    > Your scheme would force the viewer to download *every* large image. Stupid
    > really, those on dial-up would be long gone.


    Unless the thumbnail is downloaded by changing the source of an already-
    existing image, as in a low-tech JS image mouse over.

    --
    Hywel http://kibo.org.uk/
    I do not eat quiche.
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Dec 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Richard

    rf Guest

    Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > In article <F71yd.83451$>, rf@.invalid
    > says...
    > > Richard wrote
    > > >
    > > > My next step is to see if my photo gallery scheme will work with this
    > > > method.
    > > > That is, showing thumbnails, clicking on the thumbnail, and the larger

    > > image
    > > > appears over the existing stuff.
    > > > Click the larger image and go back to where you were.

    > >
    > > That would be defeating the whole purpose of using thumbnails.
    > >
    > > Thumbnails are supposed to be used so the viewer does *not* have to

    download
    > > the larger image if they do not feel like looking at it.
    > >
    > > Your scheme would force the viewer to download *every* large image.

    Stupid
    > > really, those on dial-up would be long gone.

    >
    > Unless the thumbnail is downloaded by changing the source of an already-
    > existing image, as in a low-tech JS image mouse over.


    ?

    He's talking about having *all* the large images in hidden divs on the page,
    made visible when I click the relevant thumbnail. So, all the large images
    are downloaded.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Richard

    C.W. Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:06:29 GMT, "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote:

    >Richard wrote
    >>
    >> My next step is to see if my photo gallery scheme will work with this
    >> method.
    >> That is, showing thumbnails, clicking on the thumbnail, and the larger

    >image
    >> appears over the existing stuff.
    >> Click the larger image and go back to where you were.

    >
    >That would be defeating the whole purpose of using thumbnails.
    >
    >Thumbnails are supposed to be used so the viewer does *not* have to download
    >the larger image if they do not feel like looking at it.
    >
    >Your scheme would force the viewer to download *every* large image. Stupid
    >really, those on dial-up would be long gone.


    I originally used pop-ups for sharing the larger copies [I know - ew
    ew ickie poo]. The site those were used was hosted on a free level of
    GeoCities site space which their new ad square mucked with for some
    reason; half the time the pop-ups wouldn't work.

    I found an alternate idea/method on alistapart.com that used
    javascript. Their example used text links but one could use
    thumbnails as the "anchor" [I did anyway]. Doesn't require all the
    larger images to be downloaded in advance. So same download time on
    the larger images - be it if they were shared separately in a pop-up
    window or stand-alone page - remained the same in the end.

    It was a quick fix until I can implement something better after
    January. I wanted to retain the perk of using thumbnails [not required
    to download all the larger image files] while not having folks
    clicking back and forth as GeoCities sometimes refreshes the page so
    hurts a bit on bandwidth during high traffic time periods.

    Carol
     
    C.W., Dec 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Richard wrote:
    > http://www.porjes.com/hide3.html#d1
    >
    > The coding is so straight forward it should become a standard!


    With CSS3, it becomes even simpler:
    <URL:http://tw.ecritters.biz/html_examples/fragment_hide/#about>.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Dec 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Richard

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > Richard wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.porjes.com/hide3.html#d1
    >>
    >> The coding is so straight forward it should become a standard!

    >
    >
    > With CSS3, it becomes even simpler:
    > <URL:http://tw.ecritters.biz/html_examples/fragment_hide/#about>.


    No browser supports CSS3 yet, so it's pretty much irrelavant.

    Apparently FireFox 2 (due end of 2005) and Mozilla 2 will support it.
    And who knows, if MS eventually shift their backsides and release IE7
    *before* Windows 6 (which is due in 2006), maybe we'll see a mass-market
    browser with full support too?

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Dec 21, 2004
    #11
  12. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >> With CSS3, it becomes even simpler:
    >> <URL:http://tw.ecritters.biz/html_examples/fragment_hide/#about>.

    >
    > No browser supports CSS3 yet, so it's pretty much irrelavant.


    True, although the Mozilla family supports the parts of CSS3 that I used
    in this example.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Dec 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Richard

    Toby Inkster Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:

    > No browser supports CSS3 yet, so it's pretty much irrelavant.
    > Apparently FireFox 2 (due end of 2005) and Mozilla 2 will support it.


    CSS3 is nowhere near being a standard yet, so I would be strongly
    skeptical of any claims that Mozilla will support it by the end of 2005.

    Of course, IE, Mozilla and Opera all support slightly overlapping *parts*
    of the CSS3 proposals.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Dec 22, 2004
    #13
  14. Richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:06:29 GMT, "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote:

    >That would be defeating the whole purpose of using thumbnails.


    It would be defeating _most_ purposes of using thumbnails. There can
    still be some justification to it if you're doing a gallery that's
    goign to be used to show nearly all of the large images, but you're
    having to ration screen space rather than bandwidth.

    --
    Smert' spamionam
     
    Andy Dingley, Dec 22, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Amir
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    601
  2. nc
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    504
    nice.guy.nige
    Feb 3, 2005
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    340
  4. Jeannie
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    895
    Jeannie
    Aug 30, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?TFc=?=
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    428
    =?Utf-8?B?TFc=?=
    Apr 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page