T
Travis Newbury
Jim said:
Actually he is.
Actually he is.
D
DC
Beauregard said:
Spruce beer is where it's at. }:O9
J
JDS
Frankly, both of you are off. Dorward wasn't being snotty or sarcastic a
all. He was just being to the point. There is a difference. The trouble
is that the text-only format of usenet conveys no emotion unless you use
emoticons or something and Dorward just didn't. (Actually, he did, even.)
No one cares that you are an expert in math or physics. At least not in
this newsgroup.
And at least 90%[1] of the answers you might receive on a topic are going
to be helpful. They just might not be the answer you are looking for.
Dorward gave the answers he did for very specific reasons, and he was
leaving it up to the OP to find out the details. But his answers are
spot-on as far as web design and HTML are concerned.
I'll even repeat them for you:
* Use real links
* Don't depend on JavaScript
* Read the FAQ about ampersands in URLs (the one that the validator links
to in its error message about them!).
Now, back to the OP, first of all, why on earth do you want every link on
every page to be a "button"? It breaks the navigational pardigm that has
been developed over the last dozen years. Web surfers (the people) are
used to seeing underlined links as links and know by now that that is what
they should click on. HTML forms were never created with navigation in
mind. It seems, frankly, a little bass-ackwards to do it the way you did.
And here is more info on ampersands:
http://www.google.com/search?num=50...US:official&q=FAQ++ampersands+URL&btnG=Search
Google is your friend.
Allright, getting late. later...
[1] Just made that number up, but "a lot" would work.
T
Toby Inkster
Jim said:
It's a superset of Ginger Beer.
J
Jim Scott
Only mentioned, because I felt the next comment would be "Since you are too
thick to understand - do not bother me"
Explain what you mean by a 'real' link.
Do I?
Did that. I didn't work but someone posted me a workaround.
So be it.
I suspect that those who look at my site are merely browsing a photo album
on a slow pc (hence a page per picture). I do not assume that those of an
older generation (like me) are familiar with computer shorthand, but are
familiar with a logo that represents a button to press.
J
JDS
But that *wasn't* the next comment! And it won't be, even in this
newsgroup!
Actually, no, it looks like you don't. But you really aren't using the
web the way it was designed. How many sites have you been to where
*every* link on the page is a form button? Not too many. There are
several reasons why but I just don't have time at the moment to go into
detail (I'll try to later)....
*What* didn't work? Specifically what did you try?
I'm not complaining about each photo on a separate page -- that is fine by
me. I'm complaining about the every-link-is-a-form-submission-button
thing. *That* is a problem, to me.
What is this "computer shorthand" you are talking about? Even the idiom of
a "button that needs to be pressed" must be learned, even by "those of an
older generation". The web pagae idiom is, links are underlined text for
which the cursor turns into a "hand" symbol when mouse-overed.
later...
J
Jim Scott
I tried replacing each & with &
The 'workaround' appears in my page
http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/bells/Bell_Menu.html
I like what it looks like: the type of smooth, rounded, contoured button,
its change in colour on mouseover and the appearance of movement on
mouse-click.
It validates in W3C and involves minimum change in my many pages.
In short it is everything I want to achieve.
T
Toby Inkster
Jim said:
Yes, but try right-clicking on it and choosing "Save Target As".
Now try that with a real link.
J
Jim Scott
At last a sound reason. Thank you.
If I take the advice offered by you and others, I have to decide what route
to take.
1) My original button was a 1x1 table with 2px border in a cell of the main
table. This contained the link, and a smidgin of css in the header made it
change colour on mouseover. It looked better in IE than Ffox.
2) A big(ish) lump of css was posted here in the last couple of days. It
produced a button which did all the 'stuff' that the form button does.
Major surgery would be involved, although I know that some of it would be
covered by an external css.
3) I could go into javascript as this keeps the quantity of changes down.
4) I could easily create none-moving buttonised gifs of the link titles
since most of them are 'back', 'next', 'menu' and 'home'.
5) I could simply use text links, but as you know that would not result in
the 'look' I want.
6) Ignore all advice and have the look I set out to find.
L
Lauri Raittila
[forms for links]
Or use links panel etc. to lock links and browse them.
Or look target in status bar
Or open links with mouse gesture
Or use type ahead or find inline features in FF or Opera.
Or ...
Bad idea. Text on images is always bad idea.
Good idea
Or use links panel etc. to lock links and browse them.
Or look target in status bar
Or open links with mouse gesture
Or use type ahead or find inline features in FF or Opera.
Or ...
Bad idea. Text on images is always bad idea.
Good idea
T
Toby Inkster
Jim said:
No major surgery required... just add normal links <a href="...">...</a>
and add a single link to a CSS file between <head> and </head>.
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/link-looks-like-a-button
I've even added some rounded borders in Mozilla-based browsers using a
proprietry Gecko CSS extension.
J
Jim Scott
I know Toby, but I've just changed my hundreds of pages and feeling a bit
shagged out.
)
J
Jim Scott
Hi Toby
Thanks for the help.
I am adapting your buttonise css, but am having a little trouble.
At first it appears as a simple text link and it does not appear as a
button until I either 'mouseover' or click and go back.
The external css file I have used is:
<style type="text/css">
a.buttonise:link {border: 2px outset silver;
background: silver;
color: black;
text-decoration: none;
padding: 1px 0.5em;
}
a.buttonise:visited {border: 2px outset silver;
background: silver;
color: #333;
text-decoration: none;
padding: 1px 0.5em;
}
a.buttonise:hover, a.buttonise:focus {
border: 2px outset #cfcfc3;
background: #cfcfc3;
color: red;
}
a.buttonise:active {border: 2px inset #cfcfc3;
background: #cfcfc3;
color: black;
}
</style>
And the 'command' from the body is:
<a class="buttonise" href="Index.html">HOME</a>
With <link rel="stylesheet"
href="button.css" type="text/css">
in the header
I've obviously missed something out somewhere, but dashed if I can see it.
Thanks for the help.
I am adapting your buttonise css, but am having a little trouble.
At first it appears as a simple text link and it does not appear as a
button until I either 'mouseover' or click and go back.
The external css file I have used is:
<style type="text/css">
a.buttonise:link {border: 2px outset silver;
background: silver;
color: black;
text-decoration: none;
padding: 1px 0.5em;
}
a.buttonise:visited {border: 2px outset silver;
background: silver;
color: #333;
text-decoration: none;
padding: 1px 0.5em;
}
a.buttonise:hover, a.buttonise:focus {
border: 2px outset #cfcfc3;
background: #cfcfc3;
color: red;
}
a.buttonise:active {border: 2px inset #cfcfc3;
background: #cfcfc3;
color: black;
}
</style>
And the 'command' from the body is:
<a class="buttonise" href="Index.html">HOME</a>
With <link rel="stylesheet"
href="button.css" type="text/css">
in the header
I've obviously missed something out somewhere, but dashed if I can see it.
T
Toby Inkster
Jim said:
An external style sheet shouldn't have these.
If that doesn't fix it, what browser are you experiencing the problem
in? URL?
J
Jim Scott
No problem. I sussed it out. Have started working from the index.html on
the bellringers section of the site. Have changed a couple of colour
things, but it's looking ok so far.
J
Jim Scott
Why do you use px AND ems?
T
Toby Inkster
Jim said:
padding: 2px 0.5em;
Means that the top and bottom margins are 2px and the left and right
margins are 0.5em.
Why did I choose to mix the systems of measurement? I just prefer to use
ems when dealing with lengths that are near to some text, or effected by
font size, but made a compromise and used pixels for the top and bottom
padding as I was dealing with very short lengths (2px is likely to be
roughly 0.1em to 0.2em).
J
Jim Scott
Thanks again. The whole site has now been done.
Can you explain why the button borders look ok in Firefox, but in IE the
top border is hardly visible?
T
Toby Inkster
Jim said:
Dunno. I don't have IE on this computer to play around with it and can't
be bothered to fire up my testing box.
At a guess, play around with the following CSS properties:
border-top
padding-top
margin-top
line-height