opera, java

Discussion in 'HTML' started by windandwaves, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Hi Folk

    I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it is not working in Opera.

    The address is:

    http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php

    The map is basically 20+ images over each other, each of which are transparent gifs.

    Apart from the first one (bottom, showing the country), they are not visible until the mouse moves over the map. That is to say,
    the JavaScript swaps the image from hidden to visible. The css for the hidden part is:

    #map IMG.n {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: hidden; z-index: 5}
    and for those that are visible:
    #map IMG.v {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: visible; z-index: 10}
    I think this is where the problem lies. The map seems to be working on Netscape, IE and firefox, but in Opera the areas are not
    highlighted.

    FYI, the way the styles get swapped is as follows:
    .....
    if (document.layers) {
    img = findElement('i'+r,0);
    }
    else {
    img = document.images['i'+r];
    }
    if (img) {
    img.className = "v";
    }
    ....

    Do you think that perhaps Opera does not recognise this swap (it seems to, because at times it shows parts of the images).

    Does anyone have any hints?

    Cheers


    - Nicolaas
     
    windandwaves, Mar 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. windandwaves

    Toby Inkster Guest

    windandwaves wrote:

    > I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it
    > is not working in Opera.
    > http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php


    Firstly, please understand the difference between Java and Javascript.

    Secondly, seems to work fine here, except these problems (that seem to
    effect *all* browsers):

    * Ticking the "North Island" box doesn't tick Wellington, but
    does highlight it, and it ticks Stewart Island, but doesn't
    highlight it.

    * Ticking South Island highlights Stewart Island, but doesn't
    tick it.

    * Hovering over Fiji doesn't cause the hover effect over the
    tick box.

    * Ticking New Zealand doesn't tick Wellington, but does highlight
    it on the map.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Mar 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. windandwaves

    the idiot Guest

    "windandwaves" <> wrote in message
    news:422d23f0$...
    > Hi Folk
    >
    > I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it is

    not working in Opera.
    >
    > The address is:
    >
    > http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php
    >
    > The map is basically 20+ images over each other, each of which are

    transparent gifs.
    >
    > Apart from the first one (bottom, showing the country), they are not

    visible until the mouse moves over the map. That is to say,
    > the JavaScript swaps the image from hidden to visible. The css for the

    hidden part is:
    >
    > #map IMG.n {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: hidden;

    z-index: 5}
    > and for those that are visible:
    > #map IMG.v {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: visible;

    z-index: 10}
    > I think this is where the problem lies. The map seems to be working on

    Netscape, IE and firefox, but in Opera the areas are not
    > highlighted.
    >
    > FYI, the way the styles get swapped is as follows:
    > ....
    > if (document.layers) {
    > img = findElement('i'+r,0);
    > }
    > else {
    > img = document.images['i'+r];
    > }
    > if (img) {
    > img.className = "v";
    > }
    > ...
    >
    > Do you think that perhaps Opera does not recognise this swap (it seems to,

    because at times it shows parts of the images).
    >
    > Does anyone have any hints?
    >

    ive just looked at it in opera 7.6 and it works for me..
    when downloading opera you have the choice of versions with or without java
    installed i seem to remember.
     
    the idiot, Mar 8, 2005
    #3
  4. windandwaves

    SpaceGirl Guest

    the idiot wrote:
    > "windandwaves" <> wrote in message
    > news:422d23f0$...
    >
    >>Hi Folk
    >>
    >>I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it is

    >
    > not working in Opera.
    >
    >>The address is:
    >>
    >>http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php
    >>
    >>The map is basically 20+ images over each other, each of which are

    >
    > transparent gifs.
    >
    >>Apart from the first one (bottom, showing the country), they are not

    >
    > visible until the mouse moves over the map. That is to say,
    >
    >>the JavaScript swaps the image from hidden to visible. The css for the

    >
    > hidden part is:
    >
    >> #map IMG.n {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: hidden;

    >
    > z-index: 5}
    >
    >>and for those that are visible:
    >> #map IMG.v {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: visible;

    >
    > z-index: 10}
    >
    >>I think this is where the problem lies. The map seems to be working on

    >
    > Netscape, IE and firefox, but in Opera the areas are not
    >
    >>highlighted.
    >>
    >>FYI, the way the styles get swapped is as follows:
    >>....
    >> if (document.layers) {
    >> img = findElement('i'+r,0);
    >> }
    >> else {
    >> img = document.images['i'+r];
    >> }
    >> if (img) {
    >> img.className = "v";
    >> }
    >>...
    >>
    >>Do you think that perhaps Opera does not recognise this swap (it seems to,

    >
    > because at times it shows parts of the images).
    >
    >>Does anyone have any hints?
    >>

    >
    > ive just looked at it in opera 7.6 and it works for me..
    > when downloading opera you have the choice of versions with or without java
    > installed i seem to remember.
    >
    >


    JavaSCRIPT. The OP confused Java for JavaScript, and the two languages
    are totally different. I think all browsers ship with JavaScript (it's
    built in). His site works fine with or without Java installed. He just
    needs to rework the code to use getElementById and dump all of that
    antiquated innerHTML stuff. This can all be done via JS and CSS without
    too much heartache.
     
    SpaceGirl, Mar 8, 2005
    #4
  5. windandwaves

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in comp.lang.javascript,alt.html, SpaceGirl
    <> said:

    > I think all browsers ship with JavaScript


    Lynx doesn't. ;-)

    SCNR

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Mar 8, 2005
    #5
  6. windandwaves

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:
    > SpaceGirl said:
    >
    >> I think all browsers ship with JavaScript

    >
    > Lynx doesn't. ;-)


    Vast numbers don't.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Mar 9, 2005
    #6
  7. windandwaves

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > Mark Parnell wrote:
    >
    >>SpaceGirl said:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I think all browsers ship with JavaScript

    >>
    >>Lynx doesn't. ;-)

    >
    >
    > Vast numbers don't.
    >


    All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
    that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
    that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
    there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
    to have JS.
     
    SpaceGirl, Mar 9, 2005
    #7
  8. On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:23:12 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:

    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    >> Mark Parnell wrote:
    >>
    >>>SpaceGirl said:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I think all browsers ship with JavaScript
    >>>
    >>>Lynx doesn't. ;-)

    >>
    >>
    >> Vast numbers don't.
    >>

    >
    > All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
    > that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
    > that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
    > there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
    > to have JS.


    I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue. As such,
    any potential client matters, and so does their browser - even if it is
    Lynx or one of the many others that doesn't ship with JavaScript. They
    may be a fraction of a percentage - say 0.1% but in a million web users,
    that still comes out to 1,000 people that may not be able to view and/or
    use your site. You can say No to them if you want to, I will gladly
    welcome them with open arms.

    Carolyn
     
    Carolyn Marenger, Mar 9, 2005
    #8
  9. windandwaves

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Carolyn Marenger wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:23:12 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Toby Inkster wrote:
    >>
    >>>Mark Parnell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>SpaceGirl said:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I think all browsers ship with JavaScript
    >>>>
    >>>>Lynx doesn't. ;-)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Vast numbers don't.
    >>>

    >>
    >>All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
    >>that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
    >>that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
    >>there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
    >>to have JS.

    >
    >
    > I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue. As such,
    > any potential client matters, and so does their browser - even if it is
    > Lynx or one of the many others that doesn't ship with JavaScript. They
    > may be a fraction of a percentage - say 0.1% but in a million web users,
    > that still comes out to 1,000 people that may not be able to view and/or
    > use your site. You can say No to them if you want to, I will gladly
    > welcome them with open arms.
    >
    > Carolyn
    >
    >


    That's too black and white. The internet using public only accounts for
    a small portion of the total population the planet. Can you afford to
    cut of 5 billion people because your medium in the intenet? You have to
    remember you cannot design sites for everyone, and if you try to you run
    the risk of alienating the people you really want to talk to. While
    text-only web sites are pretty much full accessible and available on ALL
    browsers, they are hardly going to sell products.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Mar 9, 2005
    #9
  10. On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:18:04 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:

    > Carolyn Marenger wrote:
    >> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:23:12 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>
    >>>All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
    >>>that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
    >>>that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
    >>>there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
    >>>to have JS.

    >>
    >> I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue. As such,
    >> any potential client matters, and so does their browser - even if it is
    >> Lynx or one of the many others that doesn't ship with JavaScript. They
    >> may be a fraction of a percentage - say 0.1% but in a million web users,
    >> that still comes out to 1,000 people that may not be able to view and/or
    >> use your site. You can say No to them if you want to, I will gladly
    >> welcome them with open arms.

    >
    > That's too black and white. The internet using public only accounts for
    > a small portion of the total population the planet.


    I think in the end, we'll probably agree that we are saying pretty much
    the same thing, that we are both argueing the same side, and just refusing
    to see it, for the semantics.

    A number of good points in there. You are correct, internet
    users are a very small portion of the global population. Internet is one
    of many ways to reach people, but only one. It is not the be all and end
    all, but it is very popular at the moment. It is not a medium that I have
    limited myself to. However, it is the one that has been able to reach the
    largest, geographically speaking, market.

    > Can you afford to cut of 5 billion people because your medium in the
    > intenet?


    Yes, in fact I can. I have a little under a hundred thousand hours in the computer industry. At least half of that has been in software development. That is probably why I am a stong
    believer in structured development and standards compliance. It isn't for
    everyone, but it works for me.

    > You have to remember you cannot design sites for everyone, and if you try to you run the risk of alienating the people you really want to talk to


    I don't think it is cost effective to build sites for everyone, but it is
    possible. It certainly isn't easy. Not even easy if you just want to get
    the same look and feel on all the various MS IE versions. I won't
    outright say it is impossible, but for all practicality it isn't worth it.

    > While text-only web sites are pretty much full accessible and available on ALL

    browsers, they are hardly going to sell products.

    I don't advocate text-only web sites, but I do advocate text only support.
    For example including alt="" for all graphics, title="" for all links.
    The site may not be designed for text only browsers, but at least text
    only users can get a good idea of what the site is about.

    You are right however, most users expect graphics of some sort, and many won't read
    their way through text to find what they are looking for. "A picture is
    worth a thousand words." The trick is finding the balance - users like
    myself, won't hang around an all graphic site. I leave business websites
    that require I use cookies to shop there. I would prefer to risk
    paying more than to have to use someone else's preference of a browser, to
    have to upgrade to the latest media format, and so forth. Many business
    have lost my business for things like that. I usually email the web site
    contact to let them know they are losing business - that is when I can
    even find that.

    As far as your sites go, and this is assuming alot after only a quick
    look at one of your sites, I am probably not your market audience anyway.
    So, I doubt you are losing any of my business. I would lay odds that a
    site I would design/develop for your clients, would lose them lots more
    business.

    Have a good one,

    Carolyn
     
    Carolyn Marenger, Mar 9, 2005
    #10
  11. Carolyn Marenger wrote:

    > I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue.


    But not every visitor is a potential client. Everyone that walks down
    the mall is not a potential client to every store in the mall. The same
    is true for web sites. Note, I am not disagreeing about the use of
    javascript.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Carolyn Marenger wrote:
    > I don't think it is cost effective to build sites for everyone, but it is
    > possible. It certainly isn't easy.


    Sure it is. All text. Bam the site is for everyone.

    > I don't advocate text-only web sites..


    Phew...

    > The trick is finding the balance


    Ahh THAT is the true Key!!!! Find a balance that works for YOUR
    website. If an all flash site gets your more business than text, then
    use it. If no javascript and text gets you the most clients then do
    that. Each site has to weight the pros and cons of using a technology.
    Not all sites are for all people. Using these technologies DOES NOT
    mean you can not accessible to everyone. A properly built Flash heavy
    web site can still usable by someone using lynx, or a reader. They may
    not get the same enjoyment, and it may be a little harder for them to
    find things, but the content will still be accessible to them.

    > myself, won't hang around an all graphic site. I leave business websites
    > that require I use cookies to shop there.


    Not me, flash, javascript, multimedia, bring it on, I love it all!

    > As far as your sites go, and this is assuming alot after only a quick
    > look at one of your sites, I am probably not your market audience anyway.
    > So, I doubt you are losing any of my business. I would lay odds that a
    > site I would design/develop for your clients, would lose them lots more
    > business.


    Finally some common sense in the group.


    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 11, 2005
    #12
  13. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    >
    >> Mark Parnell wrote:
    >>
    >>> SpaceGirl said:
    >>>
    >>>> I think all browsers ship with JavaScript
    >>>
    >>> Lynx doesn't. ;-)

    >>
    >> Vast numbers don't.

    >
    > All browsers that matter.


    GoogleBot doesn't matter?
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Mar 11, 2005
    #13
  14. windandwaves

    Mick White Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Carolyn Marenger wrote:
    >
    >> I don't think it is cost effective to build sites for everyone, but it is
    >> possible. It certainly isn't easy.

    >
    >
    > Sure it is. All text. Bam the site is for everyone.



    Everyone that understands the language in which its written...

    Mick
     
    Mick White, Mar 11, 2005
    #14
  15. windandwaves

    Matthew Lock Guest

    Matthew Lock, Mar 11, 2005
    #15
  16. windandwaves

    Big Bill Guest

    On 10 Mar 2005 20:31:59 -0800, "Matthew Lock" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >
    >> GoogleBot doesn't matter?

    >
    >Interestingly I think google is actually beginning to index the text in
    >Javascript:
    >http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?s=2d4cff726f5cba086d649cf103be8168&t=122
    >
    >Though your point still stands, you need to make your pages with search
    >engine spiders in mind.


    I don't believe it's the text as such, it's beginning to recognise
    links in some javascript.

    BB
    --
    www.kruse.co.uk/
    Affordable SEO!
    --
     
    Big Bill, Mar 11, 2005
    #16
  17. Mick White wrote:
    > > Sure it is. All text. Bam the site is for everyone.

    > Everyone that understands the language in which its written...


    Everyone understands English. If they don't then they have no need to
    be on the web... (0_o)

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 11, 2005
    #17
  18. windandwaves

    Matthew Lock Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Everyone understands English. If they don't then they have no need to
    > be on the web... (0_o)


    Nice troll.
     
    Matthew Lock, Mar 14, 2005
    #18
    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. zorhel
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    334
    zorhel
    Aug 24, 2004
  2. Andrew Thompson

    Opera with Java?

    Andrew Thompson, Aug 8, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    870
    Andrew Thompson
    Aug 9, 2004
  3. Bob
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,558
  4. java.exe and Opera

    , May 6, 2009, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    373
    Roedy Green
    May 7, 2009
  5. zorhel
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    129
    zorhel
    Aug 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page