could it really be this easy?

[Richard]

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?

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

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.

 

[SpaceGirl]

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 #

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[rf]

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.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

Richard wrote

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.

 

[rf]

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.

 

[C.W.]

Richard wrote

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

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

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>.

 

[SpaceGirl]

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 #

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

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.

 

[Toby Inkster]

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.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.