PNG image - transparent part clickable in Firefox

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Martin, Jul 19, 2005.

  1. Martin

    Martin Guest

    I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also. Is
    there any way to prevent this?
     
    Martin, Jul 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Martin

    Rovin Guest

    Martin wrote:
    > I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    > executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    > to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    > image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also. Is
    > there any way to prevent this?
    >
    >

    You could use an image map to define clickable areas on the image.
     
    Rovin, Jul 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Martin

    code_wrong Guest

    "Martin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    > executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    > to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    > image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also. Is
    > there any way to prevent this?


    Are you sure you want to use png?
    http://entropymine.com/jason/testbed/pngtrans/
     
    code_wrong, Jul 19, 2005
    #3
  4. Martin

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Martin <> wrote:

    >I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    >executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    >to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    >image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also.


    Only in Firefox? I would have thought that <img src="foo.png alt="foo"
    onclick="whatever()"> would affect the whole image in _all_ browsers.

    If it is only in FF then I suspect that you have something more
    complex going on, possibly involving CSS positioning. Just a wild
    guess as you didn't provide a URL to demonstrate your problem.

    > Is there any way to prevent this?


    Only by using an image map.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Jul 19, 2005
    #4
  5. Martin

    Martin Guest

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:27:29 +0100, Steve Pugh <> wrote:

    >Martin <> wrote:
    >
    >>I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    >>executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    >>to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    >>image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also.

    >
    >Only in Firefox? I would have thought that <img src="foo.png alt="foo"
    >onclick="whatever()"> would affect the whole image in _all_ browsers.


    Actually, I'm using different code to display the image in different
    browsers:

    In Firefox:

    <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;"> <img
    src='./graphics/TestFile.png' onClick="alert(this.title);"
    title="Device: Device Name Wire: 21"></p>

    In Internet Explorer:

    <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;
    filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='./graphics/ConvCurve.png');"
    onClick="alert(this.title);" title="Device: Device Name Wire:
    21"></p>

    In IE, the "hand" cursor appears only when it's over the visible part
    of the image; in Firefox, it appears when it's anywhere over the
    image.


    >If it is only in FF then I suspect that you have something more
    >complex going on, possibly involving CSS positioning. Just a wild
    >guess as you didn't provide a URL to demonstrate your problem.
    >
    >> Is there any way to prevent this?

    >
    >Only by using an image map.
    >
    > Steve
     
    Martin, Jul 19, 2005
    #5
  6. Martin wrote:
    > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:27:29 +0100, Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Martin <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    >>>executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    >>>to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    >>>image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also.

    >>
    >>Only in Firefox? I would have thought that <img src="foo.png alt="foo"
    >>onclick="whatever()"> would affect the whole image in _all_ browsers.

    >
    >
    > Actually, I'm using different code to display the image in different
    > browsers:
    >
    > In Firefox:
    >
    > <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    > width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;"> <img
    > src='./graphics/TestFile.png' onClick="alert(this.title);"
    > title="Device: Device Name Wire: 21"></p>
    >
    > In Internet Explorer:
    >
    > <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    > width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;
    > filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='./graphics/ConvCurve.png');"
    > onClick="alert(this.title);" title="Device: Device Name Wire:
    > 21"></p>
    >
    > In IE, the "hand" cursor appears only when it's over the visible part
    > of the image; in Firefox, it appears when it's anywhere over the
    > image.
    >
    >
    >
    >>If it is only in FF then I suspect that you have something more
    >>complex going on, possibly involving CSS positioning. Just a wild
    >>guess as you didn't provide a URL to demonstrate your problem.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Is there any way to prevent this?

    >>
    >>Only by using an image map.
    >>
    >> Steve

    >
    >


    Are you sure in IE the 'hand' cursor is *only* occurring over the
    visible parts of the image and not really over the 10x10 rectangle on
    the image dimensions? How about a URL? I'd like to see this one!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Martin

    Martin Guest

    >
    >Are you sure in IE the 'hand' cursor is *only* occurring over the
    >visible parts of the image and not really over the 10x10 rectangle on
    >the image dimensions? How about a URL? I'd like to see this one!


    Yes - that's the way it looks to me.

    This is all part of some R&D / learning that I doing for some pages
    that are used only on an intranet. I'm currently using VML to display
    my graphics; but I'm trying to find something that will work in
    browsers other than IE.

    My graphics are extremely simple - just rectangles and arcs. But they
    represent the real-time status of an industrial process.

    I've posted two versions of a test page that I've been working with on
    my Comcast "home" site. Here are the URL's (I'll remove these in a day
    or so)

    This one is the page that works like I want it to in IE.

    http://home.comcast.net/~martinvalley/MyPageCC.html


    This one displays in IE but, of course the transparent parts are not
    transparent. When viewed in Firefox, they are transparent but still
    clickable (which was what led to my original question).

    http://home.comcast.net/~martinvalley/MyPageFFCC.html
     
    Martin, Jul 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Martin

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, code_wrong quothed

    > Are you sure you want to use png?
    > http://entropymine.com/jason/testbed/pngtrans/


    Nice page there, cw. Simple and very informative.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Martin

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Martin wrote:
    > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:27:29 +0100, Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >
    > >Martin <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    > >>executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    > >>to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    > >>image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also.

    > >
    > >Only in Firefox? I would have thought that <img src="foo.png alt="foo"
    > >onclick="whatever()"> would affect the whole image in _all_ browsers.

    >
    > Actually, I'm using different code to display the image in different
    > browsers:


    Oh joy.

    > In Firefox:


    Presumably also Safari, Opera and unknown browsers?

    > <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:


    100 what? 180 what? units are required for all non-zero lengths in CSS.

    > 10px; width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;"> <img
    > src='./graphics/TestFile.png' onClick="alert(this.title);"
    > title="Device: Device Name Wire: 21"></p>


    Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph that contains an image which may
    or may not fit within those dimensions. If it doesn't fit then it will
    spill out of the 10x10 limits. The whole image is clickable.

    cursor: hand is a MS-ism. Use cursor: pointer; for non-MS browsers.
    It's also supported by recent versions of MSIE, so drop cursor: hand
    altogether if you're using "cutting edge" stuff like alpha channel
    PNGs.

    > In Internet Explorer:
    >
    > <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    > width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;
    > filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='./graphics/ConvCurve.png');"
    > onClick="alert(this.title);" title="Device: Device Name Wire:
    > 21"></p>


    Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph with a special sort of background
    image (which is what AlphaImageLoader produces). The 10x10 pragraph is
    clickable.

    See the difference? In one case an image is clickable, in the other
    case a 10x10 paragraph is clickable. You're not comparing like with
    like.

    > In IE, the "hand" cursor appears only when it's over the visible part
    > of the image; in Firefox, it appears when it's anywhere over the
    > image.


    Are there both visible and transparent parts in the 10x10 part of the
    image?

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Jul 20, 2005
    #9
  10. Martin

    Martin Guest

    On 20 Jul 2005 07:38:11 -0700, "Steve Pugh" <> wrote:

    >Martin wrote:
    >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:27:29 +0100, Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Martin <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>I have some .png images that have transparent areas in them. I'm
    >> >>executing some scripting in the onclick event. I would like for this
    >> >>to occur only when the pointer is over the visible portion of the
    >> >>image but, in Firefox, the transparent areas are clickable also.
    >> >
    >> >Only in Firefox? I would have thought that <img src="foo.png alt="foo"
    >> >onclick="whatever()"> would affect the whole image in _all_ browsers.

    >>
    >> Actually, I'm using different code to display the image in different
    >> browsers:

    >
    >Oh joy.
    >
    >> In Firefox:

    >
    >Presumably also Safari, Opera and unknown browsers?


    I haven't tested it in these other browsers. But, in any case, do you
    know a better way? IE won't display the transparent areas unless the
    AlphaImageLoader is used and the other browsers don't need it.

    >> <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:

    >
    >100 what? 180 what? units are required for all non-zero lengths in CSS.


    My most humble apologies - I have corrected this.

    >> 10px; width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;"> <img
    >> src='./graphics/TestFile.png' onClick="alert(this.title);"
    >> title="Device: Device Name Wire: 21"></p>

    >
    >Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph that contains an image which may
    >or may not fit within those dimensions. If it doesn't fit then it will
    >spill out of the 10x10 limits. The whole image is clickable.
    >
    >cursor: hand is a MS-ism. Use cursor: pointer; for non-MS browsers.
    >It's also supported by recent versions of MSIE, so drop cursor: hand
    >altogether if you're using "cutting edge" stuff like alpha channel
    >PNGs.


    OK - I changed "hand" to "pointer".

    >> In Internet Explorer:
    >>
    >> <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    >> width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;
    >> filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='./graphics/ConvCurve.png');"
    >> onClick="alert(this.title);" title="Device: Device Name Wire:
    >> 21"></p>

    >
    >Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph with a special sort of background
    >image (which is what AlphaImageLoader produces). The 10x10 pragraph is
    >clickable.
    >
    >See the difference? In one case an image is clickable, in the other
    >case a 10x10 paragraph is clickable. You're not comparing like with
    >like.


    As I understand it, the size of the paragraph is irrelevant. The
    entire image in each paragraph (there are quite a few on each finished
    page) is displayed in any case. I'm specifying that simply because
    that's what was in the example that I started with.

    The clickable area is NOT as you describe. The clickable area very
    clearly encompasses the visible portion of the image when displayed in
    IE and it encompasses the entire image when displayed in Firefox.

    As I mentioned in my last post, the pages I'm developing are for
    intranet use only (and a limited number of different browsers) and
    thus cannot be viewed. I have uploaded a couple of examples to my
    Comcast website. You can see them here:

    http://home.comcast.net/~martinvalley/MyPageCC.html

    http://home.comcast.net/~martinvalley/MyPageFFCC.html


    >> In IE, the "hand" cursor appears only when it's over the visible part
    >> of the image; in Firefox, it appears when it's anywhere over the
    >> image.

    >
    >Are there both visible and transparent parts in the 10x10 part of the
    >image?


    I don't know because I don't know where the 10X10 part of the image
    is.

    > Steve
     
    Martin, Jul 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Steve Pugh wrote:

    > Martin wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    > Presumably also Safari, Opera and unknown browsers?
    >
    >
    >><p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:

    >
    >
    > 100 what? 180 what? units are required for all non-zero lengths in CSS.
    >
    >


    Is that so? IIRC, blogger (blogspot.com, CSS based) works without units
    for the image-border and image width (I didn't try more fields,
    however). May be they are pixel by default --- but then your claim is
    about *all*.

    Kindly enlighten.

    Best
    A

    <snip>
    >
    > Steve
    >
     
    Animesh Kumar, Jul 21, 2005
    #11
  12. Martin

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Animesh Kumar wrote:
    > Steve Pugh wrote:
    > > Martin wrote:
    > >
    > >><p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:

    > >
    > > 100 what? 180 what? units are required for all non-zero
    > > lengths in CSS.
    > >

    >
    > Is that so?


    Yes. Feel free to check the CSS specification yourself.

    > IIRC, blogger (blogspot.com, CSS based) works without
    > units for the image-border and image width (I didn't try
    > more fields, however).


    There are lots of badly written web sites out there. Blogger is just
    one of them.

    >May be they are pixel by default


    There is no default, read the CSS spec.

    > but then your claim is about *all*.
    >
    > Kindly enlighten.


    Many web sites are badly written. In order to make baly written web
    sites display vaguely as the author intended browsers are full to the
    brim with error correcting code. The fact that several browsers treat
    no units as px doesn't make it any less wrong.

    Enlightened?

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Jul 21, 2005
    #12
  13. Martin

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Martin wrote:
    > On 20 Jul 2005 07:38:11 -0700, "Steve Pugh" <> wrote:
    > >Martin wrote:


    > >> In Firefox:
    > >> 10px; width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;"> <img
    > >> src='./graphics/TestFile.png' onClick="alert(this.title);"
    > >> title="Device: Device Name Wire: 21"></p>

    > >
    > >Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph that contains an image which may
    > >or may not fit within those dimensions. If it doesn't fit then it will
    > >spill out of the 10x10 limits. The whole image is clickable.
    > >
    > >> In Internet Explorer:
    > >>
    > >> <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    > >> width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;
    > >> filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='./graphics/ConvCurve.png');"
    > >> onClick="alert(this.title);" title="Device: Device Name Wire:
    > >> 21"></p>

    > >
    > >Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph with a special sort of background
    > >image (which is what AlphaImageLoader produces). The 10x10 pragraph is
    > >clickable.
    > >
    > >See the difference? In one case an image is clickable, in the other
    > >case a 10x10 paragraph is clickable. You're not comparing like with
    > >like.

    >
    > As I understand it, the size of the paragraph is irrelevant.


    So it seems. But for somewhat interesting reasons. Add
    p {border: 1px solid red;}
    img {border: 1px solid yellow;}
    to your CSS and you'll see that in FF the paragraph is 10px x 10px but
    the image spills out of that area.

    If you had put the onClick event handler on the paragraph in FF as you
    had in IE then only the 10x10 region defined by the paragraph would be
    clickable.

    I would either drop the width and height properties or change the 10px
    values to the actual width and height of the image contained within the
    paragraph. It probably won't make much difference to the behaviour but
    it will be more logical.

    > The entire image in each paragraph (there are quite a few
    > on each finished page) is displayed in any case.


    Yes. I missed this:
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...ilter/reference/properties/sizingmethod_1.asp
    Where it says:
    "Default. Enlarges or reduces the border of the object to fit the
    dimensions of the image."

    So even though the PNG is effectively a background image (it's actually
    a special layer between the background and content) of the paragraph,
    the paragraph is still being extended to cover the whole of the image.

    > The clickable area is NOT as you describe. The clickable area very
    > clearly encompasses the visible portion of the image when displayed in
    > IE and it encompasses the entire image when displayed in Firefox.


    You've made the whole image clickable in FF. That's all well and good
    and as expected.

    The fact that only the non-transpararent parts of the paragraph are not
    clickable in IE is bizarre and the answer may lie somewhere in the MSDN
    documentation. Just one of the bizarre aspects of the rather bizarre MS
    fliters technology.

    If you want FF to act like IE then you need to use an image as myself
    and others have previously stated.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Jul 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Martin

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    > If you want FF to act like IE then you need to use an image as myself
    > and others have previously stated.


    .... need to use an image MAP ...

    Whoops, sorry.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Jul 21, 2005
    #14
  15. Martin

    Martin Guest

    On 21 Jul 2005 02:50:22 -0700, "Steve Pugh" <> wrote:

    >Martin wrote:
    >> On 20 Jul 2005 07:38:11 -0700, "Steve Pugh" <> wrote:
    >> >Martin wrote:

    >
    >> >> In Firefox:
    >> >> 10px; width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;"> <img
    >> >> src='./graphics/TestFile.png' onClick="alert(this.title);"
    >> >> title="Device: Device Name Wire: 21"></p>
    >> >
    >> >Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph that contains an image which may
    >> >or may not fit within those dimensions. If it doesn't fit then it will
    >> >spill out of the 10x10 limits. The whole image is clickable.
    >> >
    >> >> In Internet Explorer:
    >> >>
    >> >> <p style="position:absolute; left:100; top:180; height:10px;
    >> >> width:10px; z-index:3; cursor:hand;
    >> >> filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='./graphics/ConvCurve.png');"
    >> >> onClick="alert(this.title);" title="Device: Device Name Wire:
    >> >> 21"></p>
    >> >
    >> >Here you have a 10px x 10px paragraph with a special sort of background
    >> >image (which is what AlphaImageLoader produces). The 10x10 pragraph is
    >> >clickable.
    >> >
    >> >See the difference? In one case an image is clickable, in the other
    >> >case a 10x10 paragraph is clickable. You're not comparing like with
    >> >like.

    >>
    >> As I understand it, the size of the paragraph is irrelevant.

    >
    >So it seems. But for somewhat interesting reasons. Add
    >p {border: 1px solid red;}
    >img {border: 1px solid yellow;}
    >to your CSS and you'll see that in FF the paragraph is 10px x 10px but
    >the image spills out of that area.
    >
    >If you had put the onClick event handler on the paragraph in FF as you
    >had in IE then only the 10x10 region defined by the paragraph would be
    >clickable.
    >
    >I would either drop the width and height properties or change the 10px
    >values to the actual width and height of the image contained within the
    >paragraph. It probably won't make much difference to the behaviour but
    >it will be more logical.


    Just for grins, I tried this. Without the width and height properties
    specified, the image isn't displayed at all.


    >> The entire image in each paragraph (there are quite a few
    >> on each finished page) is displayed in any case.

    >
    >Yes. I missed this:
    >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...ilter/reference/properties/sizingmethod_1.asp
    >Where it says:
    >"Default. Enlarges or reduces the border of the object to fit the
    >dimensions of the image."
    >
    >So even though the PNG is effectively a background image (it's actually
    >a special layer between the background and content) of the paragraph,
    >the paragraph is still being extended to cover the whole of the image.
    >
    >> The clickable area is NOT as you describe. The clickable area very
    >> clearly encompasses the visible portion of the image when displayed in
    >> IE and it encompasses the entire image when displayed in Firefox.

    >
    >You've made the whole image clickable in FF. That's all well and good
    >and as expected.
    >
    >The fact that only the non-transpararent parts of the paragraph are not
    >clickable in IE is bizarre and the answer may lie somewhere in the MSDN
    >documentation. Just one of the bizarre aspects of the rather bizarre MS
    >fliters technology.


    Correction:

    The non-transparent parts of the image ARE clickable.

    I don't consider such to be bizarre at all. To me, that is the way it
    should work. If something is visible it can be clicked on - if it's
    not visible, it can't be clicked on. It makes perfect sense. Why
    should something that can't be seen be clickable?

    In my situation, some of these images overlap. With the entire image
    being clickable (as in FF), it becomes possible to click on the wrong
    item and not even know it. In my example, clicking on the grey bar
    near the angled green one is an example of this. The title for the
    wrong image is displayed and the user would have no way of knowing it.


    >If you want FF to act like IE then you need to use an image as myself
    >and others have previously stated.
    >
    > Steve
     
    Martin, Jul 21, 2005
    #15
  16. Martin

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Martin wrote:
    > Correction:
    >
    > The non-transparent parts of the image ARE clickable.


    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry about the slip up.

    > I don't consider such to be bizarre at all.
    > To me, that is the way it should work.
    > If something is visible it can be clicked on - if it's
    > not visible, it can't be clicked on. It makes perfect sense. Why
    > should something that can't be seen be clickable?


    It is bizarre. The rest of the WWW doesn't work like that.

    After all, for some users nothing on the web is "seen" at all.

    What does IE do if those portions of the PNG have 1% opacity instead of
    0% opacity?

    But enough of IE's bizarreness (which you're happy with) let's turn
    back to the perfectly normal behaviour of FF...

    As far as FF is concerned what you have is no different to a
    transparent GIF. Do you expect only the non-transparent parts of GIFs
    to be clickable?

    <a href="foo"><img src="trans.gif" alt="Nothing here"></a>

    > In my situation, some of these images overlap. With the entire image
    > being clickable (as in FF), it becomes possible to click on the wrong
    > item and not even know it.


    That's a bigger problem than you originally described. Image mapping
    inidvidual images won't help you there.

    Don't overlap the images. Or make it one big image and image map that
    image.

    FF is just seeing an ordinary image. Apart from image map hotspots
    there are no non-rectangular shapes in HTML/CSS. That's the end of it.
    Use an image map or turn the whole thing into a Flash movie or
    something. T

    I suppose you could write a JavaScript function that exmained the
    coordinates of every mouse click and compared that to predefined data
    on what should be showing on screen at that point and then act
    accordingly. I don't think JS can access the internal specifics of the
    PNG files so you'd probably need to hard code the data into the JS.
    That would be nasty.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Jul 21, 2005
    #16
    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. Martin Eyles

    Transparent PNG

    Martin Eyles, Dec 1, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    664
    Martin Eyles
    Dec 2, 2004
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,181
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    477
  4. mogwaii
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,599
    mogwaii
    Dec 8, 2010
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    128
Loading...

Share This Page