opinons wanted on menu

[richard]

<http://www.opencube.com/samples/im/sample14/sample.html>

Would this be a "suckerfish" style menu?
Any reason(s) NOT to use it?

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

<http://www.opencube.com/samples/im/sample14/sample.html>

Would this be a "suckerfish" style menu?
Any reason(s) NOT to use it?

Personally, I hate these kinds of menus, on web pages, and in programs. By
the time I get the mouse over to where I need to click, the menu has
disappeared.

 

[dorayme]

Personally, I hate these kinds of menus, on web pages, and in programs. By
the time I get the mouse over to where I need to click, the menu has
disappeared.

Table-tennis. That helps train coordination. Do you have difficulty with
one level dropdown menus? Please say no, as I am about to launch my
first single level drop down. Play some table tennis before answering if
in doubt.

 

[rf]

Several.


Table-tennis. That helps train coordination. Do you have difficulty with
one level dropdown menus? Please say no, as I am about to launch my
first single level drop down. Play some table tennis before answering if
in doubt.

Does a grueling match of real tennis last night count?

I have no problem with dropdowns providing they obey two rules:

1) The dropper (the bit you hover over to activate the dropee) *is* an
actual link that leads to a page that reproduces the dropee as a normal
static sub menu.

This way one caters (as you, dorayme, have done for your forthcoming launch)
for the viewer who uses keyboard or speach or other disability things, or
suffers from a lack (as is a problem with the OP's offering) of javascript,
all of which preclude the viewer from activating the dropdown.

And yes, I have seen many sites where the dropper is not a link but
something else (<li>?) with a javascript onclick event handler.

2) The dropper and the dropee are large enough and overlap each other in
such a way that allows the mouse cursor to be moved from the former to the
latter without the dropee scarpering off somewhere. The OP's offering, by
specifying a stupidly small font-size: 11px;, fails here IMHO.



That said I agree with Adrienne. I rarely these days use that epitome ot
dropdown/flyout/dropup menus, the Windows Start Button. Rather I use
explorer and drill down to the *data* I want to edit, and rely on Windows to
launch the appropriate "editor" for that data. "Programs" I use day to day,
such as browsers, live inside their icon on the quick launch menu.

Hmmm. What ever happened to those "hyperlink" things, you know, those <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink">navigation elements</a> inside
the actual page content?

 

[dorayme]

Does a grueling match of real tennis last night count?

No, not quite fine and quick-quick enough to count in this matter. Did
you see the Olympic game TT matches? That sure put my school
championship titles in perspective.

I have no problem with dropdowns providing they obey two rules:

1) The dropper (the bit you hover over to activate the dropee) *is* an
actual link that leads to a page that reproduces the dropee as a normal
static sub menu.

Hey! I pass test one then.

This way one caters (as you, dorayme, have done for your forthcoming launch)
for the viewer who uses keyboard or speach or other disability things, or
suffers from a lack (as is a problem with the OP's offering) of javascript,
all of which preclude the viewer from activating the dropdown.

2) The dropper and the dropee are large enough and overlap each other in
such a way that allows the mouse cursor to be moved from the former to the
latter without the dropee scarpering off somewhere. The OP's offering, by
specifying a stupidly small font-size: 11px;, fails here IMHO.

I think I pass this too. It is impossible to get lost in any gap of
mine. (But I am toying with .85em for the list within list, I must
admit. However I am fashioning line-heights for the sublinks to be
generous in compensation.

Totally agree with your sentiments here.

 

[dorayme]

Totally agree with your sentiments here.

I forgot to add that it sometimes is good to repeat the main link in a
first item of the dropdown itself so that those who can operate
dropdowns are not confused. They might *miss* the fact that the main
link is a link and think that they *must* operate one of the submenu
items. The sight of the hand cursor over the head link might just be
attributed vaguely to it pointing to a sublist of links.

So sometimes good to make the first sub item the very same link. It
depends on the circumstances. In my case, the main and first sublink go
to an index section page where all is revealed in plain sight in a table
menu of the contents of that section.

The dropdown I have worked on recently is for a home page and is not so
much a quick facility for folk to navigate (though familiar visitors
will no doubt so use it) but to give information in a compact form. More
clues about what is in the site, more details about the range of
products, say. They don't *need* these details on the home page so it is
very much an extra. These things become important in designing home
pages rather than inside pages.

 

[Roy A.]

<http://www.opencube.com/samples/im/sample14/sample.html>

Would this be a "suckerfish" style menu?
Any reason(s) NOT to use it?

These kinds of menus isn't visual effective. If you're on a sub page
like Industries -> Infrastructure, the expanded menu items isn't
related to anything on that page. It's like going throughout the whole
site map every time you want to go to a new page. The sub categories
for the current page isn't listed anywhere.

Think about it, have you ever used a site map to navigate the content
of a site? I don't think so. The menu isn't as cool as it look.

 

[rf]

Streuth. There's a first

I forgot to add that it sometimes is good to repeat the main link in a
first item of the dropdown itself so that those who can operate
dropdowns are not confused. They might *miss* the fact that the main
link is a link and think that they *must* operate one of the submenu
items. The sight of the hand cursor over the head link might just be
attributed vaguely to it pointing to a sublist of links.

Hmmm. For those who have been "trained" to the broken model where the head
link is not a link? Good point though.

The dropdown I have worked on recently is for a home page and is not so
much a quick facility for folk to navigate (though familiar visitors
will no doubt so use it) but to give information in a compact form. More
clues about what is in the site, more details about the range of
products, say. They don't *need* these details on the home page so it is
very much an extra. These things become important in designing home
pages rather than inside pages.

Once again Hmmm. "Home page"? Define exactly a "home page".

Oh, yes, that is the one that appears if you don't say anything after
http://example.com/ bit, but why? Are you making your "home page" into an
index into your site? A "site map" perchance?

The original hyperlink paradigm didn't include the concept of "home" page.
Witness the wikipedia. You drift in there from google and spend hours
wandering around their pages, following the hyperlinks. I don't think I have
even viewed their "home page'

 

[Sherm Pendley]

<http://www.opencube.com/samples/im/sample14/sample.html>

Would this be a "suckerfish" style menu?
Any reason(s) NOT to use it?

Yes - it requires JavaScript to work. Basic features such as
navigating around a site should not require JS.

sherm--

 

[richard]

Yes - it requires JavaScript to work. Basic features such as
navigating around a site should not require JS.

The only reason for the JS is because it's needed to make it work in a
version of IE.
If you had read the page the menu description is on, you would know
that.
I tried it without JS and it works just the same.

 

[richard]

These kinds of menus isn't visual effective. If you're on a sub page
like Industries -> Infrastructure, the expanded menu items isn't
related to anything on that page. It's like going throughout the whole
site map every time you want to go to a new page. The sub categories
for the current page isn't listed anywhere.

Think about it, have you ever used a site map to navigate the content
of a site? I don't think so. The menu isn't as cool as it look.

Actually, I have. As sometimes you can find what you want easier and
quicker than on the main menu page. Sometimes, the main menu doesn't
list everything.

The listings you saw in this menu are there just for demo purposes.

 

[richard]

Personally, I hate these kinds of menus, on web pages, and in programs. By
the time I get the mouse over to where I need to click, the menu has
disappeared.

I know what you mean. As soon as the pointer moves off the hover area,
it collapses and you got to start all over.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Yes - it requires JavaScript to work. Basic features such as
navigating around a site should not require JS.

sherm--

Well yes, but if this is the same Richard that has posted a lot in
this group recently, then we would have already (or should have
already known this).
All this stuff is BAYSIC web design related stuff that all should know
when doing such work.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

The only reason for the JS is because it's needed to make it work in a
version of IE.

In other words, if users of that version of IE have disabled JS, it
doesn't work for them.

If you had read the page the menu description is on, you would know
that.
I tried it without JS and it works just the same.

I tried it too - I'm not in the habit of guessing about things that
are trivially easy to verify.

In FF 3, when I disabled JS, it didn't work.

sherm--

 

[Roy A.]

Yes - it requires JavaScript to work. Basic features such as
navigating around a site should not require JS.

No, it doesn't require JavaScript. The example in the link doesn't use
any JavaScript.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

No, it doesn't require JavaScript. The example in the link doesn't use
any JavaScript.

What makes you think I'm just guessing?

When I disable JS in FireFox 3, the menu rollovers stop working. I've
tested this and verified it twice.

sherm--

 

[Sherm Pendley]

What makes you think I'm just guessing?

When I disable JS in FireFox 3, the menu rollovers stop working. I've
tested this and verified it twice.

And again in Safari 3.1, with identical results - disabling JS means
no menu rollovers.

sherm--

 

[richard]

In other words, if users of that version of IE have disabled JS, it
doesn't work for them.


I tried it too - I'm not in the habit of guessing about things that
are trivially easy to verify.

In FF 3, when I disabled JS, it didn't work.

sherm--

From the page source:
<!--[imcode]*** Infinite Menus Settings / Code - This script reference
must appear last. ***

*Note: This script is required for scripted add on support and
IE 6 sub menu functionality.
*Note: This menu will fully function in all CSS2 browsers with
the script removed.-->

I use FF2 and it works with JS off.

 

[dorayme]

These kinds of menus isn't visual effective.

Funny thing to say (apart from the grammar) when you have no context yet
for where such a menu might be?

If you're on a sub page
like Industries -> Infrastructure, the expanded menu items isn't
related to anything on that page. It's like going throughout the whole
site map every time you want to go to a new page. The sub categories
for the current page isn't listed anywhere.

Perhaps you are jumping to conclusions? Perhaps the issue of a dropdown
menu and where it goes (whether just once on one page or repeated on
other pages without variation) is another question.

Think about it, have you ever used a site map to navigate the content
of a site? I don't think so. The menu isn't as cool as it look.

Why mention the worst case possibility - an author intending it as "the"
site map - as an argument against the coolness of the whole idea of any
dropdown?

 

[dorayme]

Streuth. There's a first

Bullshit. I have often agreed with you and even more. Those who I tease
(or worse still) can take their place in a sort of choir of voices in my
HTML/CSS conscience if they say sensible things.

Hmmm. For those who have been "trained" to the broken model where the head
link is not a link? Good point though.


Once again Hmmm. "Home page"? Define exactly a "home page".

Oh, yes, that is the one that appears if you don't say anything after
http://example.com/ bit, but why? Are you making your "home page" into an
index into your site? A "site map" perchance?

No, I have never made any home page a site map. But I would not in
advance say that it would be wrong to do so for any site. (I am
surprised you ask because I was pretty keen to stress that I was making
a *one level* dropdown and resisting any further temptations for the
moment)

Some sites I just keep home page simple, few words and a mainly self
explanatory set of links to the main sections, no sub details. Others, I
get stuck into with real material. If it is an essay, for example, no
need to mess about, the first paragraphs can go right in there!

It all depends on lots of things. Some houses have porches, others
hallways where people can come in from the cold and hang their hats and
stick their brollies and check themselves out in the mirror before
entering one of the main rooms. A hotel lobby with a lift and a
directory. There are a million models. Let's not stifle imagination in
advance and say what has or has not to be.

And let us not jump to conclusions about what analogies are apt or how
they are to be interpreted. Remember, Harlan keeps lists about
analogies, those who use them, misuse them, understand and misunderstand
them and it is a tricky area. Be careful. I think St Peter is trying to
get the rights to Harlan's list.