Marquee question

[Larry Smith]

Hi,

I've found a couple of useful scripts to make nice marquee scroll bars
on webpages.
The ones I've found have this in common, the text doesn't start to
repeat until the final word of the message has appeared.

I contrast that to the ticker used at: http://www.ironictimes.com/
When the last word is revealed, followed by several dots, the message
repeats and seems more continuous than in the traditional scripts.

Is there some special trick to making it look continuous?

TIA

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I've found a couple of useful scripts to make nice marquee scroll
bars on webpages.

You're kidding, right? Please keep saying that in the apparently forged
From line in future, thank you.

Is there some special trick to making it look continuous?

We could tell you, but then we would have to
make sure you won't use it.

 

[...D.]

You're kidding, right? Please keep saying that in the apparently forged
From line in future, thank you.

We could tell you, but then we would have to
make sure you won't use it.

Ahh yes.. This is the answer to a legitimate question I've come to expect
here is this newsgroup.. Larry, you've been answered by one of the members
of the unofficial league of judgmental holier-than-thou peanut gallery
that lays in wait in this newsgroup to punce on someone.

I'd help you out myself but I just don't know. The standard HTML marquee
does do the continuous thing after the last character displays..

I've used it, but not wanting to repeat the message to visitors, I've
inserted a million empty space code sequences. That marquee you linked to
is not repeating the same message - it's a long continuous message with
different cells of messages, with a bunch of periods after each.

But you could do this - just add your repeating message or if it is
different messages too, do it all together - just add in the repeating
message you want say.. 20 times in a row, each cell separated with the
period characters. Copy paste ovwer and over into one line.

...D.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

The standard HTML marquee

*plonk*

 

[Larry Smith]

Ahh yes.. This is the answer to a legitimate question I've come to expect
here is this newsgroup.. Larry, you've been answered by one of the members
of the unofficial league of judgmental holier-than-thou peanut gallery
that lays in wait in this newsgroup to punce on someone.

I'd help you out myself but I just don't know. The standard HTML marquee
does do the continuous thing after the last character displays..

I've used it, but not wanting to repeat the message to visitors, I've
inserted a million empty space code sequences. That marquee you linked to
is not repeating the same message - it's a long continuous message with
different cells of messages, with a bunch of periods after each.

But you could do this - just add your repeating message or if it is
different messages too, do it all together - just add in the repeating
message you want say.. 20 times in a row, each cell separated with the
period characters. Copy paste ovwer and over into one line.

...D.

Thanks for a helpful civil answer.

That first reply I got made me think that I'd stolen bread from a
street waif.

Best regards,

 

[Kim André Akerø]

Ahh yes.. This is the answer to a legitimate question I've come to expect
here is this newsgroup.. Larry, you've been answered by one of the members
of the unofficial league of judgmental holier-than-thou peanut gallery
that lays in wait in this newsgroup to punce on someone.

Because, truth is, marquees like that are heavily abused by webmasters who
don't know any better, and there's really no sure-fire way to achieve such
an effect.

I'd help you out myself but I just don't know. The standard HTML marquee
does do the continuous thing after the last character displays..

What's so standard about it? It's nowhere to be found in any of the HTML
standards (and I've looked at both HTML 4.x and XHTML). This is a "Microsoft
thing(tm)", and it's only "guaranteed" to have some level of support in
Internet Explorer.

Just as the all-too-annoying <blink> tag was "implemented" into HTML by
Netscape way back when (and it still isn't part of the official HTML
specifications yet).

Frankly, these two proprietary tags don't have a place in the world of HTML.

I've used it, but not wanting to repeat the message to visitors, I've
inserted a million empty space code sequences. That marquee you linked to
is not repeating the same message - it's a long continuous message with
different cells of messages, with a bunch of periods after each.

Question is: Why do you want to subject your visitors to that? Me, I turn
away quickly from pages that employ visible marquees, whether done by "HTML"
or by means of JavaScripts.

But you could do this - just add your repeating message or if it is
different messages too, do it all together - just add in the repeating
message you want say.. 20 times in a row, each cell separated with the
period characters. Copy paste ovwer and over into one line.

Again, that's just annoying your visitors as well as being a bad attempt of
"increasing" your "coolness" and/or showing your "savvy".

I'm sorry, but it's just as annoying as pop-ups, pop-unders, background
music (I want to listen to my own MP3 collection or to Internet radio
stations, thankyouverymuch) and splash screens for web pages.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Frankly, these two proprietary tags don't have a place in the world of HTML.

I agree (kind of). I agree with these specific tags, but I disagree
that browsers should not implement new things. That is how innovation
works. Someone trys something, it is evaluated by the masses and if it
is a good thing, then it gets excepted, if it is a bad (like these two
tags) it gets dropped.

How else would we have innovation f the browsers don't start it? Leave
it up to a small group to decide what is good or bad for the masses?
That stymies innovation.

YMMV

 

[...D.]

Because, truth is, marquees like that are heavily abused by webmasters who
don't know any better, and there's really no sure-fire way to achieve such
an effect.

Yes of course I realize that. But nowhere in that 1st response was
anything like your response. The original was just an insult really. That
is all I was saying, He should have added what you just mentioned.

...D.

 

[kchayka]

Larry, you've been answered by one of the members
of the unofficial league of judgmental holier-than-thou peanut gallery

I won't deny that Jukka's attitude can be annoying (and maybe
counterproductive), but he ain't in the peanut gallery, for sure.

Very few people are his equals where it comes to knowledge of web
authoring. Try reading some of his articles, the URL is in his sig. You
might learn something, assuming you actually want to. Feel free to stay
ignorant if that's what you prefer, though.

 

[...D.]

What's so standard about it? It's nowhere to be found in any of the HTML
standards (and I've looked at both HTML 4.x and XHTML). This is a "Microsoft
thing(tm)", and it's only "guaranteed" to have some level of support in
Internet Explorer.

Well I mis-spoke. I assumed the "marquee" command was standard HTML. I
check it's use in Windows XP using I.E. and Firefox and it works. That
must be what - 90% - 95% viewers?

To double check everything, I use an old apple G3 333 using OS 9.2, and
running the "unoffical" Mozilla (yes, I know, firefox code), and it is
seen working too.

But I see now that Netscape cannot see it, even though it is in the same
class as the Mozilla based browsers..

Looks like I am going to have to get yet even more browsers if I want to
make a catch-all website.

Just as the all-too-annoying <blink> tag was "implemented" into HTML by
Netscape way back when (and it still isn't part of the official HTML
specifications yet).

Frankly, these two proprietary tags don't have a place in the world of HTML.

In your opinion of course. You are saying never ever no-way nada zippo do
they have a usage.

Question is: Why do you want to subject your visitors to that? Me, I turn
away quickly from pages that employ visible marquees, whether done by "HTML"
or by means of JavaScripts.

Gee. "Subject users to it". Like it is torture. I don't think so when used
in the right place and not overused.. Let's say, oh, a family members
page - a simple 4 second delayed scrolling "hello guys" (that does not
repeat) has no place. I know some real estate sites use the marquee to
make a point.

My own opinion is that a scrolling text feature ala a marquee type scroll
(single line of text) definitely has a proper place. Overuse would be left
up to the webmaster. Like I said, I've used it but I do not like it to
keep rewinding and display again, so I added a lot of blank-spaces at the
end. A viewer will only see the repeat if they sit on that page for a few
minutes (or return to it). Also you can delay a message like this, so only
someone sitting on a page for a time period would see it.

I'm sorry, but it's just as annoying as pop-ups, pop-unders, background
music (I want to listen to my own MP3 collection or to Internet radio
stations, thankyouverymuch) and splash screens for web pages.

I agree with you about pop-ups being annoying. That's why thankfully
anti-popups are so common. What is needed then is browsers that can
anti-anything that you don't want to see - Anti-flash, anti-scrolling
text, anti-animated anything, anti-webmaster color selection...

I can go further wityh the pop-ups - any advertising is annoying, even
fixed on a page - whatever - any unrelated sponsor based advertising has
no place on the Internet. Annoying.

What about even one little teeny animated GIF on one stinking page - no
place, ever?

And there is flash. Any site that has flash content has no place?.But of
course not only is there flash animation, but menus and everything are
done in flash too now. Microsoft, Yahoo, news pages that display a small
animated window - all wrong?

If you check craiglist, say the popular ones - the San Francisco Bay area,
or New York, or Los Angleles - look in the computer "gigs" section where
people ask for websites to be made - seems flash is a very popular request
nowadays.

...D.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

... What is needed then is browsers that can anti-anything that you
don't want to see - Anti-flash, anti-scrolling text, anti-animated
anything, anti-webmaster color selection...

I already have one of those ... it's called Firefox! <g>

http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
Picture, in use:
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/images/prefbar.png

 

[...D.]

I won't deny that Jukka's attitude can be annoying (and maybe
counterproductive), but he ain't in the peanut gallery, for sure.

Very few people are his equals where it comes to knowledge of web
authoring. Try reading some of his articles, the URL is in his sig. You
might learn something, assuming you actually want to. Feel free to stay
ignorant if that's what you prefer, though.

I know already most of the "rules" layed down in this forum without
looking. No frames. No animated GIFs. Stick with the standard white pages.
etc..

I am curious though, as to what the opinion on the invasion of flash
websites sites...

...D.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I agree with you about pop-ups being annoying. That's why thankfully
anti-popups are so common. What is needed then is browsers that can
anti-anything that you don't want to see - Anti-flash, anti-scrolling
text, anti-animated anything, anti-webmaster color selection...

Those are things that a proxy like Proxomitron can do.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I am curious though, as to what the opinion on the invasion of flash
websites sites...

Everyone here hates flash websites. Pity though because most don't have
a clue about flash
they just parrot what they have heard from others that don't have a clue.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Everyone here hates flash websites.

Everyone? Every single person? Including yourself?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Everyone? Every single person? Including yourself?

Yea Steve everyone

 

[Kim André Akerø]

Everyone here hates flash websites. Pity though because most don't have
a clue about flash
they just parrot what they have heard from others that don't have a

clue.

Flash animations? Sure, if done properly and if it serves a proper purpose
that can't be done using regular HTML (and I'm not talking about
JavaScripts), such as cartoons, movies (NOT including "intro" movies),
presentations and games.

Entire Flash websites and/or Flash logos/navigation? Not good at all. That's
like playing out every buzzword you can think of in a conversation just to
appear "cool". Only that you don't. Instead you might end up looking
desperate and being annoying to others. At the very least these websites
should provide an alternative to those who don't use Flash (either disabled
or not installed at all), but too many *require* Flash installed and enabled
to let people visit their websites, and I will rather choose a different
website (and company) before enabling Flash just for a quick visit.

Flash banner ads? Also bad. I surf using Opera with plugins and Java applets
disabled, and I'm seeing quite a lot of blank spaces where ads might've
been. I only enable those options when I need them (such as launching a Java
application, watching an animation or playing a game).

Even worse, there are way too many inexperienced "webdesigners" who use Java
applets for navigation, just because they've figured out they kinda look
cool, and because the option is available in their WYSIWYG website creator.

 

[Kim André Akerø]

HTML.

In your opinion of course. You are saying never ever no-way nada zippo do
they have a usage.

Usage, sure. But not useful, only annoyance, at least in the way I see it.

Gee. "Subject users to it". Like it is torture. I don't think so when used
in the right place and not overused.. Let's say, oh, a family members
page - a simple 4 second delayed scrolling "hello guys" (that does not
repeat) has no place. I know some real estate sites use the marquee to
make a point.

Yes, I consider it torture, which is why I said just that.

[snip]

I agree with you about pop-ups being annoying. That's why thankfully
anti-popups are so common. What is needed then is browsers that can
anti-anything that you don't want to see - Anti-flash, anti-scrolling
text, anti-animated anything, anti-webmaster color selection...

Now you're taking it a bit off the deep end of the pool. I do, however,
prefer to surf with Java and plugins (such as Flash) disabled in Opera. And
if I wanted to, I could even disable GIF animation.

Also, Opera lets me enter "User mode" (as opposed to "Author mode"), where I
can choose the way I want to see the pages. I don't know if Firefox has a
similar function, but it wouldn't surprise me if it does (even if it
requires installing a seperate toolbar for the job).

I can go further wityh the pop-ups - any advertising is annoying, even
fixed on a page - whatever - any unrelated sponsor based advertising has
no place on the Internet. Annoying.

Sponsors are crucial to the survival of most non-commercial websites (ie.
not directly selling products and services). Although many banner ads are
quite annoying, I'm not saying that we should block them out entirely.

What about even one little teeny animated GIF on one stinking page - no
place, ever?

I never said that we should block out anything non-static, but use where
absolutely needed, don't use it because it's "cool" or because "everyone
else does".

And there is flash. Any site that has flash content has no place?.But of
course not only is there flash animation, but menus and everything are
done in flash too now. Microsoft, Yahoo, news pages that display a small
animated window - all wrong?

Flash content, yes. But not when requiring your visitor to install or enable
the use of Flash just to browse the website. Flash menus, navigation and
logos are hardly necessary when creating a website. An animated logo might
be considered "cool" by the company that owns it, but many visitors to their
websites don't always see it that way.

If you check craiglist, say the popular ones - the San Francisco Bay area,
or New York, or Los Angleles - look in the computer "gigs" section where
people ask for websites to be made - seems flash is a very popular request
nowadays.

Yes, probably by either clueless users or people who've heard about Flash,
mainly used as a buzzword. "It's the latest thing, so we MUST have it!" I've
heard that story way too many times.

I'm receiving a daily mailing list with possible projects to bid on, and I
also see way too many people looking to create a clone of an existing
website. Those existing websites are successful, and so others are trying to
copy their success by making a copy of those websites, thinking they'll make
money instantly.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Flash animations?...

No need to argue, to each his/her own.

 

[humbads]

Everyone here hates flash websites. Pity though because most don't
havea clue about flash they just parrot what they have heard from
others that don't have a clue

It's not a sin to use flash and marquee, but it it is a sin to waste
your reader's time. The question you should ask yourself is, does my
reader have to wait unnecessarily to get to critical information
because of the effects that I have added? Time is money.

Go to http://www.tacobell.com/ and try to find their menu. If you go
via the most prominent pathway, you'll be obstructed by a huge, nasty
flash animation. This wastes the time of the reader, who is looking
for information as fast as possible. It is equivalent to requiring
special goggles to view the menu at the restaurant.

Almost without exception, those who use flash or marquee use it in this
sophomoric way, and that is why it is almost universally derided here.
At least that's my take on it.