question about image and mouseover

[Lam]

hi
i have a problem with javascript
i have an image in a HTML page
i would like to have a rectangle upon mouse cursor when mouse are over
the image
but i don't know how can i do this
any idea ?

 

[Evertjan.]

Lam wrote on 04 jul 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:

<img style="cursor:url("/rect.cur");" src="">
[you have to make the cur file]

i think this solution doesn't work with other navigator than IE
no ?

With IE you have 98% of the market. I do not like that, but it seems to be
a fact.

I do not test other browsers.

 

[Evertjan.]

Lam wrote on 04 jul 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:

Lam wrote on 04 jul 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:

<img style="cursor:url("/rect.cur");" src="">
[you have to make the cur file]

i think this solution doesn't work with other navigator than IE
no ?

With IE you have 98% of the market. I do not like that, but it seems
to be a fact.

I do not test other browsers.

well
i do not user IE

Quite so.

But do you make pages only or mainly for yourself, Lam ?

If you are interested if your pages works on IE,
the best way is [also] have IE installed on your computer.

 

[Richard Cornford]

With IE you have 98% of the market. I do not like
that, but it seems to be a fact.

I would not dispute that Window IE is the most commonly used web browser
and that means that ignoring IE is not an option but I am very
suspicious of the figure of 98%. I recently read an article on browser
statistics:-

<URL: http://j3e.de/statistics_lie.html >

- that implies that the way in which the statistics are gathered (and
some internal features of the later IE versions) weight the statistics
in favour if IE by a potentially significant factor.

Richard.

 

[Richard Cornford]

I'd like to see some evidence of their assertions, I can find
none in any of the logs I've got with all sorts of files, all
the 206 responses can be explained in other ways (and none are
clustered as it suggests - nor can I find any other details on
the feature)

I was surprised by and dubious of that claim. I could not see why IE
would chose to do something very differently from other browsers when
the end result did not to appear to be significantly differently. And if
there was an advantage why not mention the difference?

... it says "IE users are thick, and spend their
time on web discussion forums" ...

The author did demonstrate a strong anti-IE bias. Though he made no
effort to conceal that bias.

The simple fact is, we don't know what users use, that doesn't
change the conclusion to the article, but I don't think the
article itselfs is very useful.

You came up with better articles, they come to the same conclusion. So
we can be confident that the majority of web browsing is done with
Windows IE and certain other browsers are also used, but putting numbers
on the proportions cannot be done meaningfully.

Richard.

 

[Evertjan.]

Richard Cornford wrote on 05 jul 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:

... , my site for Dutch family doctors
[they use their computers mostly professionally]
has the folowing statistics:

1. Internet Explorer 6.x 64.6 %
2. Internet Explorer 5.x 31.5 %
3. Netscape 3.x 3.1 %
4. Internet Explorer 4.x 0.8 %
Total 100.0 %

Disregarding the question of how representative Dutch family
doctors may be,

They do not have to be representative for a larger audience, as the pages
are only ment for them.

you don't say anything about what these figures are.

<http://www.nedstatbasic.net/s?tab=1&link=5&id=713797>

Furtermore I register the visitors to the pages and their browser by an
asp include, and this seems to correspondent really well with the netstat
figures.

They initially
look suspect because a 3% figure for Netscape 3 and zero representation
of Netscape 4 seems quite unlikely (robots spoofing Net 3?).

In any
event, numbers without any indication of what they represent, how they
were gathered or how they were processed, have no meaning.

They have meaning to me, and I showed why. I am not trying to show the
relative values inside the NS group or inside the IE group for that
matter. I followed the change from IE5/5.5 to IE6 last two years. And the
change from w98/NT5 to XP=NT5.1. They give me a reasonable trust that the
Netstat numbers are correct in the sense that the fast majority of my
audience and target audience uses IE. The NS users among my collegues are
quite capable to mail me and I advice IE in those cases, as I advice
PegasusMail instead of Outlook wherever possible.

Perhaps you all want to maximize your audience [in a commercial setting a
logical choice], I want to educate mine.

So I do not code for lynx, NS or IE4.
And not for Javascript-off.

Some slideshow routines have:
var ie55=window.createPopup
function ....
if(!IE55) return

to lessen the impact of IE5.0 incompatibility.

 

[Richard Cornford]

They do not have to be representative for a larger
audience, as the pages are only ment for them.

Then why present the figures? What percentage of a global (albeit
English reading) audience do you imagine will at some time be required
to work on web sites intended for the exclusive viewing of Dutch family
doctors?

<http://www.nedstatbasic.net/s?tab=1&link=5&id=713797>

More numbers with labels but still no explanation of what those numbers
are intended to represent of indication of how and where the data (if
any) was gathered. And their figures also contain the rather suspicious
assertion the Netscape 3 represents 3% of whatever those figures are
meant to represent but Netscape 4 is not present at all.

Furtermore I register the visitors to the pages and their
browser by an asp include, and this seems to correspondent
really well with the netstat figures.

Given that you write IE specific pages for what you admit is a
non-representative audience, if your numbers correspond closely with
nedstatbasic.net's numbers then nedstatbasic.net become even more
suspect. But do you have any evidence that you are even measuring the
same thing?

They have meaning to me, and I showed why. ...

They may have meaning for you but if you want to show them to anyone
else you should expect to be asked what they are expected to mean to
them. Otherwise they are just labelled numbers.

As far as I can see you have shown nothing.

Perhaps you all want to maximize your audience [in a
commercial setting a logical choice], I want to educate mine.

Under most circumstances a desire to educate would also imply a
requirement to reach the widest possible audience. Though I would
concede that effectively functioning as a family doctor probably does
exclude those experiencing many of the extremes of disability.

So I do not code for lynx, NS or IE4.
And not for Javascript-off.

Some slideshow routines have:
var ie55=window.createPopup
function ....
if(!IE55) return

So there is no doubt about it, you really are writing pages that will
just not work for non-(JScript enabled) IE browsers. Should it be
surprising if you don’t see much evidence of people attempting to use
other browsers on your site? That actually makes it surprising that you
can attribute 3% of whatever it is to Netscape 3.

Richard.

 

[Evertjan.]

Richard Cornford wrote on 05 jul 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:

Then why present the figures? What percentage of a global (albeit
English reading) audience do you imagine will at some time be required
to work on web sites intended for the exclusive viewing of Dutch family
doctors?

As it was an answer to why I(!!!) do not code for NS or <=IE4.

Who requires the global audience to do anything, not me, you ?

<btw>

Why do you say the global audience is English reading? If you understand
French, Latin and/or Spanish a whole new cyberworld will open for you, both
in content and in coding.

An example of quality in both aspects:

<http://lettrevolee.irht.cnrs.fr/transcription1.htm>

</btw>

 

[Richard Cornford]

As it was an answer to why I(!!!) do not code for NS or <=IE4.

The reason that you do not write for browsers other than IE is that you
currently don't know how to. What we are discussing here are you reasons
for not learning how to write cross-browser code. In the end your
personal decisions are entirely up to you and if you are in the
fortunate position that you decision will not have any consequences then
so much the better for you.

On the other hand, if you want to promote your decision with dubious and
meaningless labelled numbers then it doesn't seem unreasonable that you
be asked what those numbers are supposed to represent. You are clearly
unwilling or unable to contribute anything toward the interpretation of
those numbers and under those circumstances it would be unwise for
anybody to give them any credence.

Who requires the global audience to do anything, not me, you ?

In that context the "required" would be - by a potential employers or
clients.

<btw>
Why do you say the global audience is English reading? ...

I did not. I was conceding that although your post was globally
distributed the fact that it was written in English implied that it was
not addressed at a non-English reading audience.

Richard.

 

[Evertjan.]

Richard Cornford wrote on 07 jul 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:

On the other hand, if you want to promote your decision with dubious
and meaningless labelled numbers then it doesn't seem unreasonable
that you be asked what those numbers are supposed to represent. You
are clearly unwilling or unable to contribute anything toward the
interpretation of those numbers and under those circumstances it would
be unwise for anybody to give them any credence.

Not at all. Netstat is a reputed firm. If those numbers are checked by
me with an indepandent asp procedure also on my pageses and give
reasonably the same answer, and tell me that more than 96% of my
audience uses IE, then it is reasonable to assume tat the real figure is
far above 50%. I even take the precaution to disable counting my own
IP's access, which can be heavy sometimes when testing a page online.

In that context the "required" would be - by a potential employers or
clients.

As I told you, I have no employer nor clients at hhis site.

I did not. I was conceding that although your post was globally
distributed the fact that it was written in English implied that it
was not addressed at a non-English reading audience.

I think this is an unreasonable conclusion. Many programmers of
non-English sites like to have their tech-talk in an international space
and use this and other NGs, reading and answering in threads in any
language of their personal multilingual ability.

As I showed earlier as example that French site about an Latin lost
letter, being an unilingual has its disadvantages, surely in scope,
sometimes in understanding that scope.