css - onmouseover

[Jan C. Faerber]

is there a way to have an onmouseover effect with css without JS?
this could be just a simple way to change the colour of a <div>
section.
don't mean the traditional way to have another pic.
just the colour or another effect coming when moving the mouse over an
area.

 

[Doug Miller]

is there a way to have an onmouseover effect with css without JS?
this could be just a simple way to change the colour of a <div>
section.
don't mean the traditional way to have another pic.
just the colour or another effect coming when moving the mouse over an
area.

The :hover pseudo-class is probably what you're looking for.

 

[C A Upsdell]

The :hover pseudo-class is probably what you're looking for.

But note that IE 5 and 6 honour :hover only on links.

 

[Doug Miller]

The :hover pseudo-class is probably what you're looking for.

But note that IE 5 and 6 honour :hover only on links.
[/QUOTE]
How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/02/09/stop-developing-for-internet-explorer-6/

 

[dorayme]

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose
web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/02/09/stop-developing-for-internet-explorer-6/

In that article:

"Internet Explorer 6 still has somewhere between 20 ­ 34% of the web
browser market"

and

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

 

[Doug Miller]

In that article:

"Internet Explorer 6 still has somewhere between 20 ­ 34% of the web
browser market"

But declining by the minute...

and

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

 

[C A Upsdell]

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

Sigh. A hint: you should not be making websites for browsers; you
should be making websites for the sites' visitors.

Now can you guess?

 

[dorayme]

But declining by the minute...
Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

OK. It is declining by the minute. But it is still *over* 20% for now.
Right? So, the conclusion that some people might think rather obvious is
that this justifies spending up to 20% of the budget on the existing
audience. It is not a simple matter and this policy needs to be examined
carefully on a website by website basis.

I agree that if the rate of fall is *very rapid*, then it does become
questionable whether such an investment is worthwhile. It all depends on
what the site is and the marketing strategy (if this applies).

For example, if someone is launching a product with the aim of getting
results in a week or two, then it must be calculated whether possibly
losing over 20% of custom is worth it. If it is a site that has a
considerable long term aim, then maybe the downward trend needs to be
taken into account when deciding whether it is worth spending money
supporting what is becoming obsolete.

It seemed simply obvious to me that this is a not a black and white
affair and there are trade offs. Not that anyone seemed to understand
any of this in that URL or in the remarkably sycophantic and naive
follow up comments there.

 

[Doug Miller]

Sigh. A hint: you should not be making websites for browsers; you
should be making websites for the sites' visitors.

Now can you guess?

I think you're missing the point. Yes, obviously one should be making websites
for the site's visitors -- and *not* for the broken browsers that some of them
might happen to be using.

 

[dorayme]

I think you're missing the point. Yes, obviously one should be making
websites
for the site's visitors -- and *not* for the broken browsers that some of
them
might happen to be using.

No, I don't think Upsdell is missing the point really, the devil of this
is in the details of the connection between the audience and the
browsers. I have explained this a bit more in a reply to you earlier.
The bottom line is if it is a matter of money, then it may well be worth
it to spend 20% extra to avoid losing up to 34% of the audience. It
depends. I am not saying that there might not be a longer term interest
for us all in making life less comfortable for IE6 users. But there are
some short term obligations in this area.

It would be fascinating to see what sort of websites require such a big
effort for IE6 alone (remember there is IE7 and 8, how great are these
browsers in the standards-expected-behaviour stakes?).

 

[Peter]

But declining by the minute...
Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

OK. It is declining by the minute. But it is still *over* 20% for now.
Right? So, the conclusion that some people might think rather obvious is
that this justifies spending up to 20% of the budget on the existing
audience. It is not a simple matter and this policy needs to be examined
carefully on a website by website basis.
[/QUOTE]

And if people stopped coding for IE6 then those who still use it would
be forced to either upgrade or find an alternative, because there'd be
too many broken web pages. Thus reducing that percentage even faster.
Hehe. ;-)

 

[Peter]

One argument might be that the fewer Web sites that cater to IE "less
than version 7" the more incentive there will be for users to upgrade.

In other words, to not mince words, nothing lasts forever, upgrade your
system, upgrade your OS, come join us in the 21st Century before it's over.

Or not. but I'm not gonna worry about your broken browser much longer.
Harsh? Yep. Sorry about that.

Damn, you beat me to it.

 

[Andy Dingley]

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support
these abominations?

IE6 has a large share of the Windows 2000 market, and is likely to
continue to do so. It's around for as long as W2K is.

 

[Jan C. Faerber]

The :hover pseudo-class is probably what you're looking for.

Works fine - a made a test file: http://www.lovedieu.eu/alt.html/hover.html
That seems to be a good way to forget about
painting buttons for a menu.
Does it come only with the <a> tag?

 

[Jan C. Faerber]

It would be fascinating to see what sort of websites require such a big
effort for IE6 alone (remember there is IE7 and 8, how great are these
browsers in the standards-expected-behaviour stakes?).

Virtual PC... /-: ?
No chance to install all ies same time / machine. np

 

[Doug Miller]

No, I don't think Upsdell is missing the point really, the devil of this
is in the details of the connection between the audience and the
browsers. I have explained this a bit more in a reply to you earlier.
The bottom line is if it is a matter of money, then it may well be worth
it to spend 20% extra to avoid losing up to 34% of the audience.

Except that IE6 doesn't have anywhere near 34% of the market any more.

It
depends. I am not saying that there might not be a longer term interest
for us all in making life less comfortable for IE6 users. But there are
some short term obligations in this area.

It would be fascinating to see what sort of websites require such a big
effort for IE6 alone (remember there is IE7 and 8, how great are these
browsers in the standards-expected-behaviour stakes?).

IE7 and 8, however, do a *much* better job of implementing the standards than
IE6, so there isn't nearly as much additional work required to be compatible
with them.

 

[Doug Miller]

IE6 has a large share of the Windows 2000 market, and is likely to
continue to do so. It's around for as long as W2K is.

General support for Win2K was "retired" on 30 Jun 2005, according to MS. Tell
me again why developers should go to *any* extra lengths to support this...

 

[Doug Miller]

Works fine - a made a test file: http://www.lovedieu.eu/alt.html/hover.html
That seems to be a good way to forget about
painting buttons for a menu.
Does it come only with the <a> tag?

Nearly all recent browsers support :hover on nearly all elements. IE6 and
earlier don't, and IIRC neither does Firefox 2.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Nearly all recent browsers support :hover on nearly all elements. IE6 and
earlier don't, and IIRC neither does Firefox 2.

Nope, FF2 did support :hover on elements as Netscape 7.x

 

[picayunish]

Nope, FF2 did support :hover on elements as Netscape 7.x

If I remember correctly Netscape 4.79 did also support :hover.